Helfer Bartosz, Prosser Aaron, Samara Myrto T, Geddes John R, Cipriani Andrea, Davis John M, Mavridis Dimitris, Salanti Georgia, Leucht Stefan
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technical University Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaningerstr 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Complex Mental Illness Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada.
BMC Med. 2015 Apr 14;13:82. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0317-4.
As the number of systematic reviews is growing rapidly, we systematically investigate whether meta-analyses published in leading medical journals present an outline of available evidence by referring to previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
We searched PubMed for recent meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high impact factor journals. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified with electronic searches of keywords and by searching reference sections. We analyzed the number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews that were cited, described and discussed in each recent meta-analysis. Moreover, we investigated publication characteristics that potentially influence the referencing practices.
We identified 52 recent meta-analyses and 242 previous meta-analyses on the same topics. Of these, 66% of identified previous meta-analyses were cited, 36% described, and only 20% discussed by recent meta-analyses. The probability of citing a previous meta-analysis was positively associated with its publication in a journal with a higher impact factor (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.10) and more recent publication year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.37). Additionally, the probability of a previous study being described by the recent meta-analysis was inversely associated with the concordance of results (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.88), and the probability of being discussed was increased for previous studies that employed meta-analytic methods (odds ratio, 32.36; 95% confidence interval, 2.00 to 522.85).
Meta-analyses on pharmacological treatments do not consistently refer to and discuss findings of previous meta-analyses on the same topic. Such neglect can lead to research waste and be confusing for readers. Journals should make the discussion of related meta-analyses mandatory.
随着系统评价数量的迅速增长，我们系统地调查了发表在主要医学期刊上的荟萃分析是否通过参考先前的荟萃分析和系统评价来呈现现有证据的概述。
我们在PubMed中搜索了发表在高影响因子期刊上的近期药物治疗荟萃分析。通过电子搜索关键词和搜索参考文献部分来识别先前的系统评价和荟萃分析。我们分析了每项近期荟萃分析中引用、描述和讨论的荟萃分析及系统评价的数量。此外，我们调查了可能影响参考文献引用做法的发表特征。
我们确定了52项近期荟萃分析以及242项关于相同主题的先前荟萃分析。其中，66%的已识别先前荟萃分析被近期荟萃分析引用，36%被描述，而只有20%被讨论过。引用先前荟萃分析的概率与该分析发表在影响因子较高的期刊上呈正相关（优势比，1.49；95%置信区间，1.06至2.10），与更近的发表年份也呈正相关（优势比，1.19；95%置信区间1.03至1.37）。此外，近期荟萃分析描述先前研究的概率与结果的一致性呈负相关（优势比，0.38；95%置信区间，0.17至0.88），而采用荟萃分析方法的先前研究被讨论的概率增加（优势比，32.36；95%置信区间，2.00至522.85）。
关于药物治疗的荟萃分析并未始终如一地参考和讨论同一主题先前荟萃分析的结果。这种忽视可能导致研究浪费，并让读者感到困惑。期刊应强制要求讨论相关的荟萃分析。
