Ming Liu, Ya Gao, Kelu Yang, Yitong Cai, Jianguo Xu, Dingmei Dai, Shuilin Wu, Junhua Zhang, Jinhui Tian
{"title":"Cochrane个体参与者数据荟萃分析的报告质量和偏倚风险:一项横断面研究","authors":"Ming Liu, Ya Gao, Kelu Yang, Yitong Cai, Jianguo Xu, Dingmei Dai, Shuilin Wu, Junhua Zhang, Jinhui Tian","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to assess the reporting quality and risk of bias of Cochrane individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We searched the Cochrane Library and identified the Cochrane IPD-MAs. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data (PRISMA-IPD) assessed the reporting quality of included Cochrane IPD- MAs, and the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. We performed stratified and correlation analyses to explore factors affecting the quality.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Forty-six Cochrane IPD-MAs were included in our study. Twenty-six Cochrane IPD-MAs (56.5%) had statistical or epidemiological authors involved, and 31 (67.4%) contained only IPD data. Thirty-five studies (76.1%) did not report whether they used 1-stage or 2-stage methods, and forty (87.0%) did not report the statistical techniques used for missing participant data. We found that the entire compliance reported PRISMA-IPD items of Cochrane IPD-MAs published after 2015 (<i>n</i> = 18; Mean ± SD: 26.61 ± 2.75) was higher than those studies published in 2015 and before (<i>n</i> = 28; Mean ± SD: 22.61 ± 4.73), the difference was statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.002). A strong positive correlation was found between the fully reported PRISMA-IPD items and fully accordance ROBIS items (Spearman's: <i>ρ</i> = 0.653, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The quality of Cochrane IPD-MAs is not high, especially in the reporting of statistical methods. There was room for further improvement in IPD retrieval, IPD integrity and statistical analyses.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting quality and risk of bias of Cochrane individual participant data meta-analyses: A cross-sectional study\",\"authors\":\"Ming Liu, Ya Gao, Kelu Yang, Yitong Cai, Jianguo Xu, Dingmei Dai, Shuilin Wu, Junhua Zhang, Jinhui Tian\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jebm.12521\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study aimed to assess the reporting quality and risk of bias of Cochrane individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We searched the Cochrane Library and identified the Cochrane IPD-MAs. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data (PRISMA-IPD) assessed the reporting quality of included Cochrane IPD- MAs, and the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. We performed stratified and correlation analyses to explore factors affecting the quality.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Forty-six Cochrane IPD-MAs were included in our study. Twenty-six Cochrane IPD-MAs (56.5%) had statistical or epidemiological authors involved, and 31 (67.4%) contained only IPD data. Thirty-five studies (76.1%) did not report whether they used 1-stage or 2-stage methods, and forty (87.0%) did not report the statistical techniques used for missing participant data. We found that the entire compliance reported PRISMA-IPD items of Cochrane IPD-MAs published after 2015 (<i>n</i> = 18; Mean ± SD: 26.61 ± 2.75) was higher than those studies published in 2015 and before (<i>n</i> = 28; Mean ± SD: 22.61 ± 4.73), the difference was statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.002). A strong positive correlation was found between the fully reported PRISMA-IPD items and fully accordance ROBIS items (Spearman's: <i>ρ</i> = 0.653, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The quality of Cochrane IPD-MAs is not high, especially in the reporting of statistical methods. There was room for further improvement in IPD retrieval, IPD integrity and statistical analyses.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16090,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jebm.12521\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jebm.12521","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reporting quality and risk of bias of Cochrane individual participant data meta-analyses: A cross-sectional study
Objectives
This study aimed to assess the reporting quality and risk of bias of Cochrane individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs).
Methods
We searched the Cochrane Library and identified the Cochrane IPD-MAs. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data (PRISMA-IPD) assessed the reporting quality of included Cochrane IPD- MAs, and the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. We performed stratified and correlation analyses to explore factors affecting the quality.
Results
Forty-six Cochrane IPD-MAs were included in our study. Twenty-six Cochrane IPD-MAs (56.5%) had statistical or epidemiological authors involved, and 31 (67.4%) contained only IPD data. Thirty-five studies (76.1%) did not report whether they used 1-stage or 2-stage methods, and forty (87.0%) did not report the statistical techniques used for missing participant data. We found that the entire compliance reported PRISMA-IPD items of Cochrane IPD-MAs published after 2015 (n = 18; Mean ± SD: 26.61 ± 2.75) was higher than those studies published in 2015 and before (n = 28; Mean ± SD: 22.61 ± 4.73), the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002). A strong positive correlation was found between the fully reported PRISMA-IPD items and fully accordance ROBIS items (Spearman's: ρ = 0.653, p < 0.001).
Conclusions
The quality of Cochrane IPD-MAs is not high, especially in the reporting of statistical methods. There was room for further improvement in IPD retrieval, IPD integrity and statistical analyses.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (EMB) is an esteemed international healthcare and medical decision-making journal, dedicated to publishing groundbreaking research outcomes in evidence-based decision-making, research, practice, and education. Serving as the official English-language journal of the Cochrane China Centre and West China Hospital of Sichuan University, we eagerly welcome editorials, commentaries, and systematic reviews encompassing various topics such as clinical trials, policy, drug and patient safety, education, and knowledge translation.