File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analyses of Helicobacter pylori infection-related clinical studies: A critical appraisal

TitleAssessing heterogeneity in meta-analyses of Helicobacter pylori infection-related clinical studies: A critical appraisal
Authors
KeywordsHelicobacter pylori
Meta-analyses
Quality
Issue Date2004
PublisherBlackwell Publishing Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1443-9611&site=1
Citation
Chinese Journal Of Digestive Diseases, 2004, v. 5 n. 3, p. 126-133 How to Cite?
AbstractObjective: To critically assess the meta-analyses of Helicobacter pylori infection-related clinical studies, particularly the handling of between-study heterogeneity. Methods: A qualitative, all-language, systematic literature search was performed in Medline, PubMed, BioMed Central and Embase up to February 2003, supplemented by a manual search of major relevant journals. Assessment was according to modified criteria for literature searching, eligibility criteria, validity assessment, data extraction and presentation. Five parameters were used to assess the quality of the meta-analyses in handling between-study heterogeneity. Results: Of 84 potentially relevant citations, 47 were systematic reviews and of them 38 were meta-analyses. Of these 38 studies, 15 (39.5%) had conducted a literature search of multiple databases and 34 (89.5%) had conducted a supplementary manual search. The eligibility criteria were clearly presented in 81.6% of studies, but the quality of the primary studies was assessed in only 26.3%. The process and strategy for data extraction was reported in 57.9% of all studies; 19 (50%) studies planned statistical tests of between-study homogeneity and the results were reported in 18, but the level of statistical significance was reported in only 11 (57.9%). The selection of and justification for a statistical model was presented in 39.5% and 26.3% of studies, respectively. Among the 11 meta-analyses in which statistical between-study heterogeneity was reported, 54.5% ignored the statistical findings and proceeded to pool the study results. The implications of between-study heterogeneity were discussed in only 8 studies. Conclusions: Many methodological flaws were identified in the meta-analyses of H. pylori-related clinical studies, particularly for assessing, reporting and interpreting between-study heterogeneity. This warrants consistent and urgent adherence by reviewers and journal editors to the methodological guidelines for meta-analyses.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/87566
ISSN
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHuang, JQen_HK
dc.contributor.authorZheng, GFen_HK
dc.contributor.authorIrvine, EJen_HK
dc.contributor.authorKarlberg, Jen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T09:31:30Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T09:31:30Z-
dc.date.issued2004en_HK
dc.identifier.citationChinese Journal Of Digestive Diseases, 2004, v. 5 n. 3, p. 126-133en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1443-9611en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/87566-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To critically assess the meta-analyses of Helicobacter pylori infection-related clinical studies, particularly the handling of between-study heterogeneity. Methods: A qualitative, all-language, systematic literature search was performed in Medline, PubMed, BioMed Central and Embase up to February 2003, supplemented by a manual search of major relevant journals. Assessment was according to modified criteria for literature searching, eligibility criteria, validity assessment, data extraction and presentation. Five parameters were used to assess the quality of the meta-analyses in handling between-study heterogeneity. Results: Of 84 potentially relevant citations, 47 were systematic reviews and of them 38 were meta-analyses. Of these 38 studies, 15 (39.5%) had conducted a literature search of multiple databases and 34 (89.5%) had conducted a supplementary manual search. The eligibility criteria were clearly presented in 81.6% of studies, but the quality of the primary studies was assessed in only 26.3%. The process and strategy for data extraction was reported in 57.9% of all studies; 19 (50%) studies planned statistical tests of between-study homogeneity and the results were reported in 18, but the level of statistical significance was reported in only 11 (57.9%). The selection of and justification for a statistical model was presented in 39.5% and 26.3% of studies, respectively. Among the 11 meta-analyses in which statistical between-study heterogeneity was reported, 54.5% ignored the statistical findings and proceeded to pool the study results. The implications of between-study heterogeneity were discussed in only 8 studies. Conclusions: Many methodological flaws were identified in the meta-analyses of H. pylori-related clinical studies, particularly for assessing, reporting and interpreting between-study heterogeneity. This warrants consistent and urgent adherence by reviewers and journal editors to the methodological guidelines for meta-analyses.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1443-9611&site=1en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofChinese Journal of Digestive Diseasesen_HK
dc.subjectHelicobacter pylorien_HK
dc.subjectMeta-analysesen_HK
dc.subjectQualityen_HK
dc.titleAssessing heterogeneity in meta-analyses of Helicobacter pylori infection-related clinical studies: A critical appraisalen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=1443-9611&volume=5&spage=126&epage=133&date=2004&atitle=Assessing+heterogeneity+in+meta-analyses+of+Helicobacter+pylori+infection-related+clinical+studies:+a+critical+appraisalen_HK
dc.identifier.emailKarlberg, J: jpekarl@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityKarlberg, J=rp00400en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1443-9573.2004.00169.xen_HK
dc.identifier.pmid15612249-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-4444376656en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros88450en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-4444376656&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume5en_HK
dc.identifier.issue3en_HK
dc.identifier.spage126en_HK
dc.identifier.epage133en_HK
dc.publisher.placeAustraliaen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHuang, JQ=7403635051en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridZheng, GF=7402224500en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridIrvine, EJ=35432070900en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridKarlberg, J=7005218406en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike59262-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats