Cited by 36Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

An overview of systematic reviews found suboptimal reporting and methodological limitations of mediation studies investigating causal mechanisms

Open access
Cashin, Aidan G., Lee, Hopin, Lamb, Sarah E., Hopewell, Sally, Mansell, Gemma, Williams, Christopher M., Kamper, Steven J., Henschke, Nicholas +1 more·2019·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objectives The objective of this study was to investigate whether systematic reviews of mediation studies identify limitations in reporting quality and methodological conduct.Study design and setting We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PubMed) to identify systematic reviews of studies that used mediation analysis to investigate mechanisms of health care interventions or exposures in clinical populations between 2007 and 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Summary data on the characteristics, reporting quality, and methodological conduct of the studies included in the systematic reviews were extracted independently by two reviewers. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017059834).Results Fifty-four systematic reviews were included, representing 11 health care fields, 26 health conditions, and 2008 mediation studies. Eighteen of fifty-four systematic reviews (33%) explicitly stated that the reporting of primary studies was suboptimal. Of these, 14/18 (78%) reviews noted incomplete reporting of effect sizes and precision estimates from mediation analyses. Twenty-nine of fifty-four systematic reviews (54%) identified limitations in the methodological conduct of primary studies.Conclusion The reporting and methodological conduct of studies investigating mechanisms in health care seems to be suboptimal. Guidance is needed to improve the quality, completeness, and transparency of mediation studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.005

Cites

86 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Methodological limitations and suboptimal reporting remain challenges across the mediation literature.

    “methodological limitations and suboptimal reporting remain challenges across the mediation literature (Cashin et al., 2019).”

    From Measuring the active elements of cognitive-behavioral therapies (2023) · cites this paper as Cashin et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Vanderweele TJ. Explanation in Causal Inference. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
  2. A2. Search Strategy 1. mechanism evaluation 2. mediat* 3. mediation analysis 4. mediation analyses 5. causal mediation analysis 6. causal mediation analyses 7. Combine 1-6 OR 8. systematic adj2 (review* or overview*) 9. systematic review 10. narrative review 11. meta analysis 12. meta-analysis 13. Combine 8-12 OR 14. 7 AND 13

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cashin, A. G., Lee, H., Lamb, S. E., Hopewell, S., Mansell, G., Williams, C. M., Kamper, S. J., Henschke, N., & McAuley, J. H.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Aston University (GB)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Lee, Hopin
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
111
Pages
60-68.e1
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2923845382
Cited by
36
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • CEGA
  • Laura and John Arnold Foundation
  • University of New South Wales
  • NeuRA
  • Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1126767)
  • National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
mediation analysis, reporting quality, methodological limitations, causal mechanisms, health interventions, effect size, transparency
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Research Design, Causality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review