Ghosal, S. Conducting and Reporting Meta-Analysis: A Checklist for Reviewers. International Journal of Diabetes and Technology 2022, 1, 121, doi:10.4103/ijdt.ijdt_16_23.
Ghosal, S. Conducting and Reporting Meta-Analysis: A Checklist for Reviewers. International Journal of Diabetes and Technology 2022, 1, 121, doi:10.4103/ijdt.ijdt_16_23.
Ghosal, S. Conducting and Reporting Meta-Analysis: A Checklist for Reviewers. International Journal of Diabetes and Technology 2022, 1, 121, doi:10.4103/ijdt.ijdt_16_23.
Ghosal, S. Conducting and Reporting Meta-Analysis: A Checklist for Reviewers. International Journal of Diabetes and Technology 2022, 1, 121, doi:10.4103/ijdt.ijdt_16_23.
Abstract
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become an important way to summarize data. The hierarchy of evidence-based medicine confers a high platform to meta-analyses. Hence, it is imperative that the analytical and reporting strategy associated with a meta-analysis be standardized. The modern tradition of reporting and publishing a meta-analysis is riddled with several methodological flaws. The most common of these flaws involve the choice of the model used to conduct the meta-analysis and the way that the heterogeneity of studies is assessed. The use of the I2 statistic as a means of detecting within-study heterogeneity is a common methodological flaw encountered in reporting summary statistics.One of the ways to rectify the above flaws is to arm reviewers with an objective way to scrutinize the manuscript. This narrative review enlists six checklists for reviewers to improve the reporting of meta-analyses. The first two checklists address reporting of the risk of bias and assessment of publication bias with the help of a funnel plot. Checklists 3,4, and 5 address the choice of model selected for the meta-analysis, the method to assess the confidence interval, and the measures of heterogeneity. The final checklist addresses the question asked in the meta-analysis, binary versus an effect size estimate. Although there are many more aspects which can help improve the assessment of a manuscript, these basic checklists can be employed by reviewers without the need for an external statistical analysis to enhance and improve meta-analyses.
Keywords
Meta-analysis; heterogeneity; reviewer; checklist
Subject
Medicine and Pharmacology, Internal Medicine
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
