CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and BibliometricsPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Quality assessment of meta-analyses of RCTs of pharmacotherapy in major depressive disorder.

Hemels, Michiel E. H., Vicente, Colin, Sadri, Hamid, Masson, Mary Jane, Einarson, Thomas R.·2004·Current Medical Research and Opinion
DOI 10.1185/030079904125003197
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have the potential to provide the highest level of evidence, but the quality of published MAs has not been systematically assessed. Therefore, we determined reliability was significant (kappa = 0.89; p < 0.05). the quality of reporting in MAs of RCTs of pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults (18-65 years) without comorbidities and examine trends over time. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, Psychlit and Cochrane databases were searched (1980-2002) by 4 independent reviewers for MAs of RCTs. Articles meeting inclusion criteria were blinded. Inter-rater reliability (kappa) was evaluated using a test-retest strategy on 4 articles. Quality was (p = 0.74) did not detect a difference in quality of assessed using the QUOROM checklist. Time trends were evaluated by calculating Spearman's rho. RESULTS: One hundred articles were identified, 68 were excluded [co-morbidities (9), inappropriate comparator (13), inappropriate outcome (15), article not available (5), inappropriate patient population (15), and inappropriate study design (11)]; 32 were included. Initial kappa was 0.81 (p < 0.05). After resolution of disagreements, the test-retest The mean overall quality score was 50.2% (SD 15.8%, range = 16.7-88.9%). The overall score for Titles was very poor (22%), Abstracts (40%) and Methods (49%) were poor, while overall Results score was minimally acceptable (54%). Good quality scores were found for Introduction (91%) and Discussion (97%). No time trends were identified using Spearman's correlation analysis (rho 0.05; p = 0.79). The Mann-Whitney U test articles published before and after the QUOROM. CONCLUSION: Despite quality guidelines, the average quality of published MAs of antidepressants is barely acceptable (50.2%). A need exists for adherence to standardized reporting and quality guidelines.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1185/030079904125003197

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hemels, M. E. H., Vicente, C., Sadri, H., Masson, M. J., & Einarson, T. R.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Hemels, Michiel E. H.
ORCID
Venue
Current Medical Research and Opinion
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2004-02-05
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
477-484
ISSN
  • 0300-7995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4877
DOI
10.1185/030079904125003197
OpenAlex
W2147866356
Cited by
23
References
86
Citations by year
2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Medical Research and Opinion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
meta-analysis quality, reporting quality, major depressive disorder, antidepressants, pharmacotherapy, reporting guidelines, inter-rater reliability, randomized controlled trials
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Depressive Disorder, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Middle Aged, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials 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