CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 738Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence

Open access
Barker, Timothy Hugh, Migliavaca, Celina Borges, Stein, Cinara, Colpani, Verônica, Falavigna, Maicon, Aromataris, Edoardo, Munn, Zachary·2021·BMC Medical Research Methodology
DOI 10.1186/s12874-021-01381-zPMC PMC8451728
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Single group data present unique challenges for synthesises of evidence. Proportional meta-analysis is becoming an increasingly common technique employed for the synthesis of single group data. Proportional meta-analysis shares many similarities with the conduct and reporting of comparative, or pairwise, meta-analysis. While robust and comprehensive methods exist detailing how researchers can conduct a meta-analysis that compares two (or more) groups against a common intervention, there is a scarcity of methodological guidance available to assist synthesisers of evidence in the conduct, interpretation, and importance of proportional meta-analysis in systematic reviews. Main body: This paper presents an overview targeted to synthesisers of evidence and systematic review authors that details the methods, importance, and interpretation of a proportional meta-analysis. We provide worked examples of how proportional meta-analyses have been conducted in research syntheses previously and consider the methods, statistical considerations, and presentation of this technique. Conclusion: This overview is designed to serve as practical guidance for synthesisers of evidence in the conduct of proportional meta-analyses.

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 · 10.1186/s12874-021-01381-z

Cites

10 of 10 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?

  • Proportions were combined using logit transformation to address CI estimates falling outside the zero to 1 range.

    “Proportions were combined using logit transformation to address the issue of CI estimates falling outside the zero to 1 range.29”

    From Adherence to PCSK9 Inhibitors in Clinical Practice (2026) · cites this paper as [29]

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: 35

  1. [1]Rao SR Graubard BI Schmid CH Morton SC Louis TA Zaslavsky AM Meta-analysis of survey data: application to health services research Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 2008 8 2 98 114 10.1007/s10742-008-0032-0 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [3]Kahn SK. Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine: how to review and apply findings of healthcare research. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press; 2003.
  3. [4]Barendregt JJ Doi SA Lee YY Norman RE Vos T Meta-analysis of prevalence J Epidemiol Community Health 2013 67 11 974 978 10.1136/jech-2013-203104 23963506 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [5]Riley RD Moons KG Snell KI Ensor J Hooft L Altman DG A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies BMJ 2019 364 k4597 10.1136/bmj.k4597 30700442 · DOI
  5. [6]Iorio A Spencer FA Falavigna M Alba C Lang E Burnand B Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients BMJ 2015 350 h870 10.1136/bmj.h870 25775931 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [7]Borges Migliavaca C Stein C Colpani V Barker TH Munn Z Falavigna M How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study BMC Med Res Methodol 2020 20 1 9 10.1186/s12874-020-00975-3 PMC7184711 32336279 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [8]Munn Z Stern C Aromataris E Lockwood C Jordan Z What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences BMC Med Res Methodol 2018 18 1 5 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4 29316881 PMC5761190 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [11]Escobar-Morreale HF Santacruz E Luque-Ramírez M Botella Carretero JI Prevalence of ‘obesity-associated gonadal dysfunction’in severely obese men and women and its resolution after bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis Hum Reprod Update 2017 23 4 390 408 10.1093/humupd/dmx012 28486593 · DOI
  9. [12]Munn Z Moola S Lisy K Riitano D Murphy F Claustrophobia in magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis Radiography 2015 21 2 e59 e63 10.1016/j.radi.2014.12.004 · DOI
  10. [13]Parola V Coelho A Cardoso D Sandgren A Apóstolo J Prevalence of burnout in health professionals working in palliative care: a systematic review JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2017 15 7 1905 1933 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-003309 28708752 · DOI
  11. [14]Tham Y-C Li X Wong TY Quigley HA Aung T Cheng C-Y Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis Ophthalmology 2014 121 11 2081 2090 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013 24974815 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [15]Hill NR Fatoba ST Oke JL Hirst JA O’Callaghan CA Lasserson DS Global prevalence of chronic kidney disease–a systematic review and meta-analysis PloS one 2016 11 7 e0158765 10.1371/journal.pone.0158765 27383068 PMC4934905 · DOI
  13. [16]Munn Z Moola S Lisy K Riitano D Tufanaru C Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015 13 3 147 153 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000054 26317388 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [18]Munn Z Moola S Lisy K Riitano D The Joanna Briggs institute reviewers’ manual 2014 The systematic review of prevalence and incidence data 2014 Adelaide The Joanna Briggs Institute
  15. [20]Colpani V Soares Falcetta F Bacelo Bidinotto A Kops NL Falavigna M Serpa Hammes L Prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) in Brazil: a systematic review and meta-analysis PLoS One 2020 15 2 e0229154 10.1371/journal.pone.0229154 32084177 PMC7034815 · DOI
  16. [24]Cook JA The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials Trials 2009 10 1 1 9 10.1186/1745-6215-10-9 19200379 PMC2654883 · DOI
  17. [25]Schizas D Frountzas M Sgouromallis E Spartalis E Mylonas KS Papaioannou TG Esophageal defect repair by artificial scaffolds: a systematic review of experimental studies and proportional meta-analysis Dis Esophagus 2020 34 3 doaa104 10.1093/dote/doaa104 33016317 · DOI
  18. [26]Legatti SAM El Dib R Legatti E Botan AG Camargo SEA Agarwal A Acute kidney injury in cats and dogs: a proportional meta-analysis of case series studies PLoS One 2018 13 1 e0190772 10.1371/journal.pone.0190772 29370180 PMC5784898 · DOI
  19. [27]Ianunzio JR Effectiveness of operative interventions in individuals with a hemi or total hip arthroplasty who sustain a Vancouver B2 peri-prosthetic femoral fracture [thesis] 2018 Adelaide The University of Adelaide 28178018
  20. [28]Pham C Lizarondo L Karnon J Aromataris E Munn Z Gibb C Strategies for implementing shared decision making in elective surgery by health care practitioners: a systematic review J Eval Clin Pract 2020 26 2 582 601 10.1111/jep.13282 31490593 · DOI
  21. [29]Lee J Kim KW Choi SH Huh J Park SH Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers-part II. Statistical methods of meta-analysis Korean J Radiol 2015 16 6 1188 1196 10.3348/kjr.2015.16.6.1188 26576107 PMC4644739 · DOI
  22. [30]Campbell JM Klugar M Ding S Carmody DP Hakonsen SJ Jadotte YT Diagnostic test accuracy: methods for systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015 13 3 154 162 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000061 26355602 · DOI · Paper page
  23. [31]Decks JJ Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests BMJ 2001 323 7305 157 162 10.1136/bmj.323.7305.157 11463691 PMC1120791 · DOI
  24. [32]Harbord RM Deeks JJ Egger M Whiting P Sterne JA A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies Biostatistics 2007 8 2 239 251 10.1093/biostatistics/kxl004 16698768 · DOI
  25. [34]Rutter CM Gatsonis CA A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations Stat Med 2001 20 19 2865 2884 10.1002/sim.942 11568945 · DOI
  26. [35]García-Pérez MA Statistical conclusion validity: some common threats and simple remedies Front Psychol 2012 3 325 22952465 PMC3429930
  27. [36]Bland M An introduction to medical statistics 2015 UK Oxford University Press
  28. [38]Schwarzer G Chemaitelly H Abu-Raddad LJ Rücker G Seriously misleading results using inverse of freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation in meta-analysis of single proportions Res Synth Methods 2019 10 3 476 483 10.1002/jrsm.1348 30945438 PMC6767151 · DOI · Paper page
  29. [40]Saha S Chant D Mcgrath J Meta-analyses of the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia: conceptual and methodological issues Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2008 17 1 55 61 10.1002/mpr.240 18286464 PMC6878550 · DOI · Paper page
  30. [42]Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley; 2021.
  31. [43]Migliavaca CB Stein C Colpani V Munn Z Falavigna M Quality assessment of prevalence studies: a systematic review J Clin Epidemiol 2020 127 59 68 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.039 32679313 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [45]Dunnigan K Confidence interval calculation for binomial proportions 2008 Indianapolis MWSUG Conference
  33. [46]Newcombe RG Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods Stat Med 1998 17 8 873 890 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<873::AID-SIM779>3.0.CO;2-I 9595617 · DOI · Paper page
  34. [47]Brown LD Cai TT DasGupta A Interval estimation for a binomial proportion Stat Sci 2001 16 2 101 133 10.1214/ss/1009213286 · DOI
  35. [49]Egger M Smith GD Schneider M Minder C Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Increase in studies of publication bias coincided with increasing use of meta-analysis Br Med J 1997 316 629 634 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barker, T. H., Migliavaca, C. B., Stein, C., Colpani, V., Falavigna, M., Aromataris, E., & Munn, Z.
Affiliations
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
  • Hospital Moinhos de Vento (BR)
Corresponding author
Barker, Timothy Hugh
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-09-20
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
189-189
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12874-021-01381-z
PMC
PMC8451728
OpenAlex
W3200920720
Cited by
738
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 140 · 2025: 193 · 2024: 231 · 2023: 134 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
systematic reviews, evidence synthesis, methodological recommendations, statistical interpretation, meta-analysis methodology
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Research Design, Research Personnel

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