Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/139433
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Type: | Journal article |
Title: | Methods used to select results to include in meta-analyses of nutrition research: A meta-research study |
Author: | Kanukula, R. McKenzie, J.E. Bero, L. Dai, Z. McDonald, S. Kroeger, C.M. Korevaar, E. Page, M.J. |
Citation: | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2022; 142:171-183 |
Publisher: | Elsevier |
Issue Date: | 2022 |
ISSN: | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
Statement of Responsibility: | Raju Kanukula, Joanne E McKenzie, Lisa Bero, Zhaoli Dai, Sally McDonald, Cynthia M Kroeger, Elizabeth Korevaar, Matthew J Page |
Abstract: | Objectives: To investigate how often review authors encounter multiple results from included studies that are eligible for inclusion in a particular meta-analysis, and how often methods to select results are specified. Methods: MEDLINE and Epistemonikos were searched (January 2018–June 2019) to identify systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes. A random sample of these reviews was selected, and for the first presented (index) meta-analysis, rules used to select effect estimates to include in this meta-analysis were extracted from the reviews and their protocols. All effect estimates from the primary studies that were eligible for inclusion in the index meta-analyses were extracted (e.g., when a study report presented effect estimates for blood pressure at 3 weeks and 6 weeks, both unadjusted and adjusted for covariates, and all were eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis of the effect of red meat consumption on blood pressure, we extracted all estimates, and classified the study as having “multiplicity of results”). Results: Forty-two systematic reviews with 325 studies (104 randomized, 221 non-randomized) were included; 14 reviews had a protocol. In 29% of review protocols and 69% of reviews, authors specified at least one decision rule to select effect estimates when multiple were available. In 68% of studies included in the index meta-analyses, there was at least one type of multiplicity of results. Conclusions: Authors of systematic reviews of nutrition studies should anticipate encountering multiplicity of results in the included primary studies. Specification of methods to handle multiplicity when designing reviews is therefore recommended. |
Keywords: | Meta-analysis; Systematic review; Nutrition; Multiplicity; Eligibility criteria; Decision rule |
Description: | Available online 12 November 2021 |
Rights: | © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.016 |
Grant ID: | http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1139997 http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DE200101618 http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1143429 |
Published version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.016 |
Appears in Collections: | Public Health publications |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
hdl_139433.pdf | Published version | 655.57 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.