The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Results are reported according to the said guidelines [22], which include an adapted PRISMA statement [26].”
In the citing paper
“However, a risk-of-bias assessment was not completed because bias was not pertinent to this review’s research question, as per the meta-epidemiologic study guidelines by Murad and Wang [22].”
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
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164 · cited 1×
“6–8 In this guide, we adapt the items used in the PRISMA statement 9 for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis to fit the setting of meta-epidemiological studies.”
MethodPanic, N., Leoncini, E., de Belvis, G., Ricciardi, W., & Boccia, S. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083138 · Cited by 883 · cited 1×
“Evaluation of the instructions given to authors shows that PRISMA guidance was referenced only in 13% of gastroenterology and hepatology journals.(20) Here, we have proposed a reporting guideline to be used when publishing meta-epidemiological research.”
MethodEnhancing the quality and transparency of health research
Groves, T. (2008) · British medical journal · doi:10.1136/bmj.a718 · Cited by 727
Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect
Murad, M. H., Mustafa, R. A., Schünemann, H. J., Sultan, S., & Santesso, N. (2017) · Evidence Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2017-110668 · Cited by 717 · cited 1×
“Investigators should, however, inform readers of their certainty in the results, even if this was determined narratively 16 because formal approaches 15 are intended to rate the certainty of evidence about interventions.”
BackgroundSavović, J., Jones, H., Altman, D., Harris, R., Jűni, P., Pildal, J., Als-Nielsen, B., Balk, E., Gluud, C., Gluud, L., et al. (2012) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta16350 · Cited by 668
Hróbjartsson, A., Emanuelsson, F., Skou Thomsen, A. S., Hilden, J., & Brorson, S. (2014) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyu115 · Cited by 462 · cited 1×
“41) compared with blinded trials.(11) A third example is a study that explored the effect of trials stopped early for benefit on future research.”
BackgroundMurad, M. H., Montori, V. M., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Jaeschke, R., Devereaux, P. J., Prasad, K., Neumann, I., Carrasco-Labra, A., Agoritsas, T., Hatala, R., et al. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.5559 · Cited by 454 · cited 2×
“The quality of evidence is a highly important step in a systematic review reporting on a treatment effect 15 and is critical for decision making but also may not be relevant to a meta-epidemiological study.”
BackgroundRandomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials
Odgaard-Jensen, J., Vist, G. E., Timmer, A., Kunz, R., Akl, E. A., Schünemann, H., Briel, M., Nordmann, A. J., Pregno, S., & Oxman, A. D. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000012.pub3 · Cited by 439 · cited 2×
“For example, the meta-epidemiological study showing that trials with inadequate allocation concealment yielded larger estimates of effects (relative to trials with adequate allocation concealment) does not necessarily have to describe patients’ characteristics or comorbidities in each individual trial.(10) Publication…”
MethodResultSterne, J. A. C., Jüni, P., Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Bartlett, C., & Egger, M. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1184 · Cited by 382
Thompson, M., den Bruel, A. V., Verbakel, J. Y. J., Lakhanpaul, M., Haj-Hassan, T. A., Stevens, R., Moll, H. A., Buntinx, F., Berger, M. Y., Aertgeerts, B., et al. (2012) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta16150 · Cited by 324
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide
Johnston, A., Kelly, S., Hsieh, S., Skidmore, B., & Wells, G. A. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.030 · Cited by 274
“Although no checklist of reporting items was designed specifically for SRs of CPGs, we recommend authors make use of existing checklists, such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist [69] or guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological research [70], which will be…”
MethodMoseley, A. M., Rahman, P., Wells, G. A., Zadro, J. R., Sherrington, C., Toupin‐April, K., & Brosseau, L. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222770 · Cited by 188
“The study type was identified as a meta-epidemiological study because we used a systematic review to provide data for methodological analysis and the unit of analysis is at the study level [21].”
MethodA tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why
Mbuagbaw, L. C. E., Lawson, D. O., Puljak, L., Allison, D. B., & Thabane, L. (2020) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01107-7 · Cited by 181
Ayorinde, A., Williams, I., Mannion, R., Song, F., Skrybant, M., Lilford, R. J., & Chen, Y. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227580 · Cited by 121
“We carried out a meta-epidemiological study [12] to estimate the frequency with which publication and outcome reporting bias were considered in systematic reviews and to explore factors associated with consideration of these forms of potential bias.”
MethodCalibrating the Scientific Ecosystem Through Meta-Research
Hardwicke, T. E., Serghiou, S., Janiaud, P., Danchev, V., Crüwell, S., Goodman, S. N., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2020) · Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application · doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-031219-041104 · Cited by 98
“F or p er so na l u se o nl y. evidence in different settings, or quantification of heterogeneity (Murad & Wang 2017).”
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC5537553
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
