Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: A systematic examination

56Citations
Citations of this article
60Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Helfer, B., Prosser, A., Samara, M. T., Geddes, J. R., Cipriani, A., Davis, J. M., … Leucht, S. (2015). Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: A systematic examination. BMC Medicine, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0317-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free