An overview on the methodological and reporting quality of dose–response meta-analysis on cancer prevention
- 97 Downloads
Dose–response meta-analysis (DRMA) has been widely used in exploring cancer risk factors. Understanding the quality of published DRMAs on cancer risk factors may be beneficial for informed prevention for cancer.
We searched eligible DRMAs from 1st January 2011 to 31st-July-2017. The modified AMSTAR 1.0 (15 items) and PRISMA checklist (26 items) were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of included DRMAs. We compared the adherence rate of these items by journal type, publication years, region, and funding information, in prior.
We included 260 DRMAs. Colorectal, breast, prostate, and lung were the four most commonly investigated cancers. For methodological quality, 6 out of 15 items were adhered by less than 30% of the DRMAs, 2 by less than 60%, only 7 of which by 80% or more. For reporting quality, 3 out of 26 items were adhered by less than 30% of the DRMAs, 1 by less than 80% (> 30%), and 20 of which by 80% or more. Those published in general journal, published more recently, and received any financial support have better methodological (Rate differences, RDs = 10–36%; P < 0.05) and reporting adherence (RDs = 12–36%; P < 0.05). DRMAs by Asian author tend to be less qualified than by European and American.
The methodological quality of DRMAs on cancer risk factors is worrisome that the findings of them may be deflective; more efforts are needed to improve the validity of it.
KeywordsCancer prevention Dose–response meta-analysis Methodological quality Reporting quality
I (XC) would like to express my deep appreciation for Prof. Suhail A.R Doi (Qatar University) for his guidance on me of synthesis methods for dose–response data.
LTZ, HJY, and XC conceived and designed the study; XC and ZC drafted the manuscript; XC and LY contributed to the quality assessment; LTZ, HJY, ZC, JK, LS, ZJG, and GL provided careful comments and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version to be published.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, Barber RM et al (2017) Global, Regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol 3:524–548. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- GBD 2015 Risk Factors Collaborators (2016) Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 388:1659–1724. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31679-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Xu C, Doi SAR (2018) The robust error meta-regression method for dose-response meta-analysis. Int J Evid-Based Healthc 16:138–144Google Scholar