Reporting quality and statistical analysis of published dose-response meta-analyses was suboptimal: a cross-sectional literature survey.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to investigate the characteristics, methodological quality, and reporting of statistical analyses of published dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched PubMed to identify DRMAs published in 2017. The reporting characteristics and methodological qualities were assessed by the PRISMA (27 items) and AMSTAR (11 items), respectively. We also summarized the reporting of statistical analyses of included DRMAs.

RESULTS

We identified 93 DRMAs, most of which (59/93) were conducted by Chinese researchers and the main outcome was the incidence of cancers. Of the PRISMA and AMSTAR items, twenty and five were well complied (80% or more), respectively. The compliance rates of several PRISMA checklist items, such as structured summary, objectives, protocol and registration, and funding, were less than 50%. There were no criteria to estimate the doses for the open-ended intervals of exposure or intervention doses. When the restricted cubic splines were used to fit nonlinear dose-response relationships, there were also no criteria to determine the fixed knots.

CONCLUSION

The adherence to the methodological items of reporting guidelines and statistical analysis of published DRMAs were suboptimal. Development of reporting guidelines to assist authors in writing and readers in critically appraising the reports of DRMAs is timely.