CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 129Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating Meta-analyses in the General Surgical Literature: A Critical Appraisal

Open access
Dixon, Elijah, Hameed, Morad, Sutherland, Francis, Cook, Deborah J., Doig, Christopher·2005·Annals of Surgery
DOI 10.1097/01.sla.0000154258.30305.dfPMC PMC1356983
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodologic quality of meta-analyses of general surgery topics published in peer-reviewed journals. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are used to seek, summarize, and interpret primary studies on a given topic. Accordingly, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of high-quality primary studies may be the highest level of evidence for issues of prevention and treatment in evidence-based medicine. However, not all published meta-analyses are rigorously performed. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (from January 1, 1997, to September 1, 2002) and reference lists and solicited general surgery specialists to identify relevant meta-analyses. Inclusion criteria were use of meta-analytic methods to pool the results of primary studies in general surgery on issues of diagnosis, causation, prognosis, or treatment. Our search strategies identified 487 potentially relevant articles. After excluding articles based on a priori criteria, 51 meta-analyses fulfilled eligibility criteria. In duplicate and independently, 2 reviewers assessed the quality of these meta-analyses using a 10-item index called the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall concordance between 2 independent reviewers was good (interobserver agreement 81%, and a kappa of 0.62 (95% CI 0.55-0.69). Of 51 relevant articles, 38 were published in surgical journals. Most studies had major methodologic flaws (median score of 3.3, scale of 1-7). Factors associated with low overall scientific quality included the absence of any prior meta-analyses publications by authors and meta-analyses produced by surgical department members without external collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: This critical appraisal of meta-analyses published in the general surgery literature demonstrates frequent methodologic flaws. The quality of these reports limits the validity of the findings and the inferences that can be made about the primary studies reviewed. To improve the quality of future meta-analyses, we recommend following guidelines for the optimal conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in general surgery.

Overview

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 · 10.1097/01.sla.0000154258.30305.df

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wiseman, 1999, Meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of an adhesion barrier (Interceed TC7) in laparotomy., J Reprod Med, 44, 325

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 129

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Dixon, E., Hameed, M., Sutherland, F., Cook, D. J., & Doig, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Dixon, Elijah
  • Hameed, Morad
  • Sutherland, Francis
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2005-03
Volume
241
Issue
3
Pages
450-459
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/01.sla.0000154258.30305.df
PMC
PMC1356983
OpenAlex
W2081069584
Cited by
129
References
89
Citations by year
2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
10.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
meta-analysis, methodological quality, general surgery, critical appraisal, reporting guidelines, surgical journals, interobserver agreement
MeSH terms
Publishing, Review Literature as Topic, General Surgery, Meta-Analysis as Topic

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