Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jan 8:25:14102.
doi: 10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.102.

Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool

Robin S T Ho  1 , Xinyin Wu  1 , Jinqiu Yuan  1 , Siya Liu  1 , Xin Lai  1 , Samuel Y S Wong  1 , Vincent C H Chung  2
Affiliations

Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool

Robin S T Ho et al. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. .

Abstract

Background: Meta-analysis (MA) of randomised trials is considered to be one of the best approaches for summarising high-quality evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatments. However, methodological flaws in MAs can reduce the validity of conclusions, subsequently impairing the quality of decision making.

Aims: To assess the methodological quality of MAs on COPD treatments.

Methods: A cross-sectional study on MAs of COPD trials. MAs published during 2000-2013 were sampled from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool.

Results: Seventy-nine MAs were sampled. Only 18% considered the scientific quality of primary studies when formulating conclusions and 49% used appropriate meta-analytic methods to combine findings. The problems were particularly acute among MAs on pharmacological treatments. In 48% of MAs the authors did not report conflict of interest. Fifty-eight percent reported harmful effects of treatment. Publication bias was not assessed in 65% of MAs, and only 10% had searched non-English databases.

Conclusions: The methodological quality of the included MAs was disappointing. Consideration of scientific quality when formulating conclusions should be made explicit. Future MAs should improve on reporting conflict of interest and harm, assessment of publication bias, prevention of language bias and use of appropriate meta-analytic methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sampling of meta-analyses on COPD treatment: flow chart.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Buist AS, McBurnie MA, Vollmer WM, Gillespie S, Burney P, Mannino DM. International variation in the prevalence of COPD (the BOLD Study): a population-based prevalence study. Lancet. 2007;370:741–750. - PubMed
    1. Gershon AS, Warner L, Cascagnette P, Victor JC, To T. Lifetime risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a longitudinal population study. Lancet. 2011;378:991–996. - PubMed
    1. Global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease . Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Updated 2013. Available from http://www.goldcopd.org/uploads/users/files/GOLD_Report_2013_Feb20.pdf .
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults—United States, 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61:938–943. - PubMed
    1. Celli BR, MacNee W. Standards for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with COPD: a summary of the ATS/ERS position paper. Eur Respir J. 2004;23:932–946. - PubMed

MeSH terms