Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Prospective meta-analyses (PMA) may reduce many of the issues that can occur in traditional (retrospective) meta-analyses by reducing biases in publication and selective reporting. A summary of PMA literature is needed to gain greater clarity and inform future reporting of PMA.
Objectives: To identify and describe the key features, methods and reporting characteristics of PMA in health research.
Methods: We searched for studies using search terms derived from previously identified PMA, and by consulting topic experts. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO and performed grey literature searches. The search results were screened by one reviewer, with a sample screened by a second reviewer, to identify any potential PMA or methods articles on PMA. Data were then extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. These data were then used to create a survey, which was sent to authors of potential PMA.
Results: Title and abstract screening identified 1,109 articles, including two from additional sources. Full text screening was carried out on 289 articles. Of these, 117 articles were identified, including 51 potential and 15 confirmed PMA. The authors of 51 potential PMA were contacted with a survey to determine if they were PMA. We received a 76% response rate to the survey. Of the respondents, 10 were confirmed as not being a PMA, and three did not go ahead due to lack of funding, 12 were confirmed as PMA and another 12 remained uncertain. Of the 27 PMA identified, some reported not having a published protocol and had varied reporting on details such as committees involved, or methods used to identify studies for inclusion. PMA was undertaken in several health areas, with the most prominent being in cancer, cardiovascular disease and reproductive and child health. The identified PMA methods papers were mostly outdated and inconsistent and 63% included only a short section on PMA.
Conclusions: Identification of PMA was difficult. There is insufficient information reported and when details were reported, this was done with much variation. The prevailing uncertainty after contacting authors highlighted the lack of understanding of the definition of PMA. Therefore, a standardised way of reporting PMA is greatly needed. The PMA methods group is currently working on developing such standardised reporting tools.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: PMA have the potential to help patients in areas that may not have been possible before. For example, questions can be answered for subgroups and rarer outcomes that may have never before been possible to address.
Objectives: To identify and describe the key features, methods and reporting characteristics of PMA in health research.
Methods: We searched for studies using search terms derived from previously identified PMA, and by consulting topic experts. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO and performed grey literature searches. The search results were screened by one reviewer, with a sample screened by a second reviewer, to identify any potential PMA or methods articles on PMA. Data were then extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. These data were then used to create a survey, which was sent to authors of potential PMA.
Results: Title and abstract screening identified 1,109 articles, including two from additional sources. Full text screening was carried out on 289 articles. Of these, 117 articles were identified, including 51 potential and 15 confirmed PMA. The authors of 51 potential PMA were contacted with a survey to determine if they were PMA. We received a 76% response rate to the survey. Of the respondents, 10 were confirmed as not being a PMA, and three did not go ahead due to lack of funding, 12 were confirmed as PMA and another 12 remained uncertain. Of the 27 PMA identified, some reported not having a published protocol and had varied reporting on details such as committees involved, or methods used to identify studies for inclusion. PMA was undertaken in several health areas, with the most prominent being in cancer, cardiovascular disease and reproductive and child health. The identified PMA methods papers were mostly outdated and inconsistent and 63% included only a short section on PMA.
Conclusions: Identification of PMA was difficult. There is insufficient information reported and when details were reported, this was done with much variation. The prevailing uncertainty after contacting authors highlighted the lack of understanding of the definition of PMA. Therefore, a standardised way of reporting PMA is greatly needed. The PMA methods group is currently working on developing such standardised reporting tools.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: PMA have the potential to help patients in areas that may not have been possible before. For example, questions can be answered for subgroups and rarer outcomes that may have never before been possible to address.