Cited by 515Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyClinical practice guidelines implementation

Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research

Open access
Murad, Mohammad Hassan, Wang, Zhen·2017·Evidence Based Medicine

Abstract

Published research should be reported to evidence users with clarity and transparency that facilitate optimal appraisal and use of evidence and allow replication by other researchers. Guidelines for such reporting are available for several types of studies but not for meta-epidemiological methodology studies. Meta-epidemiological studies adopt a systematic review or meta-analysis approach to examine the impact of certain characteristics of clinical studies on the observed effect and provide empirical evidence for hypothesised associations. The unit of analysis in meta-epidemiological studies is a study, not a patient. The outcomes of meta-epidemiological studies are usually not clinical outcomes. In this guideline, we adapt items from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) to fit the context of meta-epidemiological 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 · 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713

Cites

24 of 24 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murad, M. H., & Wang, Z.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Murad, Mohammad Hassan
Venue
Evidence Based Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-07-12
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
139-142
ISSN
  • 1356-5524 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-6810
OpenAlex
W2735796955
Cited by
515
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 103 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2
FWCI
18.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
meta-epidemiology, reporting guidelines, PRISMA, study characteristics, research transparency, reproducibility, systematic reviews
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Publishing, Quality Control, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Research Report

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