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
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Dec 20;23(1):302.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02124-y.

Evaluation of 'implications for research' statements in systematic reviews of interventions in advanced cancer patients - a meta-research study

W Siemens  1   2 , G Bantle  3 , C Ebner  3 , A Blümle  4 , G Becker  5 , G Schwarzer  6 , J J Meerpohl  3   7
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Evaluation of 'implications for research' statements in systematic reviews of interventions in advanced cancer patients - a meta-research study

W Siemens et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Implications for research (IfR) sections are an important part of systematic reviews (SRs) to inform health care researchers and policy makers. PRISMA 2020 recommends reporting IfR, while Cochrane Reviews require a separate chapter on IfR. However, it is unclear to what extent SRs discuss IfR. We aimed i) to assess whether SRs include an IfR statement and ii) to evaluate which elements informed IfR statements.

Methods: We conducted a meta-research study based on SRs of interventions in advanced cancer patients from a previous project (CRD42019134904). As suggested in the Cochrane Handbook, we assessed if the following predefined variables were referred to in IfR statements: patient, intervention, control, outcome (PICO) and study design; concepts underlying Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) domains: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias. Data were independently extracted by three reviewers after piloting the data extraction form. Discrepancies were resolved in weekly in-depth discussions.

Results: We included 261 SRs. The majority evaluated a pharmacological intervention (n = 244, 93.5%); twenty-nine were Cochrane Reviews (11.1%). Four out of five SRs included an IfR statement (n = 210, 80.5%). IfR statements commonly addressed 'intervention' (n = 121, 57.6%), 'patient ' (n = 113, 53.8%), and 'study design' (n = 107, 51.0%). The most frequent PICO and study design combinations were 'patient and intervention ' (n = 71, 33.8%) and 'patient, intervention and study design ' (n = 34, 16.2%). Concepts underlying GRADE domains were rarely used for informing IfR recommendations: 'risk of bias ' (n = 2, 1.0%), and 'imprecision ' (n = 1, 0.5%), 'inconsistency ' (n = 1, 0.5%). Additional elements informing IfR were considerations on cost effectiveness (n = 9, 4.3%), reporting standards (n = 4, 1.9%), and individual patient data meta-analysis (n = 4, 1.9%).

Conclusion: Although about 80% of SRs included an IfR statement, the reporting of PICO elements varied across SRs. Concepts underlying GRADE domains were rarely used to derive IfR. Further work needs to assess the generalizability beyond SRs in advanced cancer patients. We suggest that more specific guidance on which and how IfR elements to report in SRs of interventions needs to be developed. Utilizing PICO elements and concepts underlying GRADE according to the Cochrane Handbook to state IfR seems to be a reasonable approach in the interim.

Registration: CRD42019134904.

Keywords: GRADE; Implications for research; Meta-research; Oncology; Systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow Diagram of included systematic reviews; CDSR Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; MA meta-analysis; n. s. not statistically significant; PRISMA Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; RCT randomized controlled trial; SR Systematic Review; WoS Web of Science
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Ravaud P, Créquit P, Williams HC, Meerpohl J, Craig JC, Boutron I. Future of evidence ecosystem series: 3. From an evidence synthesis ecosystem to an evidence ecosystem. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:153–161. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.027. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, Draborg E, Henriksen M, Andreasen J, Christensen R, Nasser M, Ciliska D, Tugwell P. Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 3: Using an Evidence-Based Research approach to place your results into context after the study is performed to ensure usefulness of the conclusion. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:167–171. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.021. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, Draborg E, Henriksen M, Andreasen J, Christensen R, Nasser M, Ciliska D, Clarke M. Evidence-based research series-paper 2: using an evidence-based research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:158–166. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.019. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, Michie S, Moher D, Wager E. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. The Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–276. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, Howells DW, Ioannidis JP, Oliver S. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. The Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–165. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types