Current studentsExisting staffContact us
 

Identification of application and interpretation errors that can occur in pairwise meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions: A systematic review

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorKanukula, R.
dc.contributor.authorPage, M.J.
dc.contributor.authorTurner, S.L.
dc.contributor.authorMcKenzie, J.E.
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To generate a bank of items describing application and interpretation errors that can arise in pairwise meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions. Study Design and Setting: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched to identify studies describing types of errors in metaanalyses. Descriptions of errors and supporting quotes were extracted by multiple authors. Errors were reviewed at team meetings to determine if they should be excluded, reworded, or combined with other errors, and were categorized into broad categories of errors and subcategories within. Results: Fifty articles met our inclusion criteria, leading to the identification of 139 errors. We identified 25 errors covering data extraction/ manipulation, 74 covering statistical analyses, and 40 covering interpretation. Many of the statistical analysis errors related to the metaanalysis model (eg, using a two-stage strategy to determine whether to select a fixed or random-effects model) and statistical heterogeneity (eg, not undertaking an assessment for statistical heterogeneity). Conclusion: We generated a comprehensive bank of possible errors that can arise in the application and interpretation of meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions. This item bank of errors provides the foundation for developing a checklist to help peer reviewers detect statistical errors.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityRaju Kanukula, Matthew J. Page, Simon L. Turner, Joanne E. McKenzie
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2024; 170:111331-1-111331-13
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111331
dc.identifier.issn0895-4356
dc.identifier.issn1878-5921
dc.identifier.orcidKanukula, R. [0000-0003-0793-786X]
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2440/142509
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier BV
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DE200101618
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/GNT2009612
dc.rights© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
dc.source.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111331
dc.subjectSystematic review; Meta-analysis; Error; Checklist; Item bank; Interventions
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshData Interpretation, Statistical
dc.subject.meshResearch Design
dc.subject.meshMeta-Analysis as Topic
dc.subject.meshSystematic Reviews as Topic
dc.titleIdentification of application and interpretation errors that can occur in pairwise meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions: A systematic review
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Research Outputs