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
. 2024 Sep 28;13(1):244.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02661-7.

The reporting quality of meta-epidemiological studies needs substantial improvement: a research on research study

Youlin Long  1   2   3 , Yurong Zheng  4 , Xinyao Wang  2   3 , Qiong Guo  2   5 , Na Zhang  2   3 , Ya Deng  2 , Ruixian Tang  2 , Zhengchi Li  6   7   8 , Liang Du  9   10
Affiliations

The reporting quality of meta-epidemiological studies needs substantial improvement: a research on research study

Youlin Long et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Meta-epidemiological research plays a vital role in providing empirical evidence needed to develop methodological manuals and tools, but the reporting quality has not been comprehensively assessed, and the influence of reporting guidelines remains unclear. The current study aims to evaluate the reporting quality of meta-epidemiological studies, assess the impact of reporting guidelines, and identify factors influencing reporting quality.

Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for meta-epidemiological studies. The reporting quality of these studies was assessed for adherence to established reporting guidelines. Two researchers independently screened the studies and assessed the quality of the included studies. Time-series segmented linear regression was used to evaluate changes in reporting quality over time, while beta-regression analysis was performed to identify factors significantly associated with reporting quality.

Results: We initially identified 1720 articles, of which 125 meta-epidemiological studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 65 (52%) had low reporting quality, 60 (48%) had moderate quality, and none achieved high quality. Of the 24 items derived from established reporting guidelines, 4 had poor adherence, 13 had moderate adherence, and 7 had high adherences. High journal impact factor (≥ 10) (OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.80; P = 0.003) and protocol registration (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.22; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with better reporting quality. The publication of the reporting guideline did not significantly increase the mean reporting quality score (- 0.53, 95% CI: - 3.37, 2.31; P = 0.67) or the trend (- 0.38, 95% CI: - 1.02, 0.26; P = 0.20).

Conclusions: Our analysis showed suboptimal reporting quality in meta-epidemiological studies, with no improvement post-2017 guidelines. This potential shortcoming could hinder stakeholders' ability to draw reliable conclusions from these studies. While preregistration could reduce reporting bias, its adoption remains low. Registration platforms could consider creating tailored types for meta-epidemiological research, and journals need to adopt more proactive measures to enforce reporting standards.

Keywords: Interrupted time-series analysis; Meta-epidemiological studies; Reporting quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The flow chart of literature selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Number of publications per year (up to June 1, 2022)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Adherence of the meta-epidemiological studies to the reporting guidelines
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The percentage of adequately reported individual items based on the guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Change in mean reporting quality score from 2012 to 2022, before and after the introduction of the reporting guideline for meta-epidemiological studies published in 2017
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Multivariable regression analysis with the beta-regression model of potential factors for reporting quality of meta-epidemiological studies
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Steps and strategies to enhance reporting quality in meta-epidemiological studies
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343: d5928. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sterne JAC, Jüni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta-epidemiological’ research. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1513–24. - PubMed
    1. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook For Systematic Reviews Of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane. 2022;www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 25 Jun 2024.
    1. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366: l4898. - PubMed
    1. Saldanha IJ, Adam GP, Bañez LL, Bass EB, Berliner E, Devine B, et al. Inclusion of nonrandomized studies of interventions in systematic reviews of interventions: updated guidance from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Effective Health Care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;152:300–6. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources