Methodological standards for meta-analyses and qualitative systematic reviews of cardiac prevention and treatment studies a scientific statement from the American Heart Association

Goutham Rao, Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, Jack Boyd, Frank D'Amico, Nefertiti H. Durant, Mark A. Hlatky, George Howard, Katherine Kirley, Christopher Masi, Tiffany M. Powell-Wiley, Anthony E. Solomonides, Colin P. West, Jennifer Wessel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Meta-analyses are becoming increasingly popular, especially in the fields of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment. They are often considered to be a reliable source of evidence for making healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, problems among meta-analyses such as the misapplication and misinterpretation of statistical methods and tests are long-standing and widespread. The purposes of this statement are to review key steps in the development of a metaanalysis and to provide recommendations that will be useful for carrying out meta-analyses and for readers and journal editors, who must interpret the findings and gauge methodological quality. To make the statement practical and accessible, detailed descriptions of statistical methods have been omitted. Based on a survey of cardiovascular metaanalyses, published literature on methodology, expert consultation, and consensus among the writing group, key recommendations are provided. Recommendations reinforce several current practices, including protocol registration; comprehensive search strategies; methods for data extraction and abstraction; methods for identifying, measuring, and dealing with heterogeneity; and statistical methods for pooling results. Other practices should be discontinued, including the use of levels of evidence and evidence hierarchies to gauge the value and impact of different study designs (including meta-analyses) and the use of structured tools to assess the quality of studies to be included in a metaanalysis. We also recommend choosing a pooling model for conventional meta-analyses (fixed effect or random effects) on the basis of clinical and methodological similarities among studies to be included, rather than the results of a test for statistical heterogeneity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e172-e194
JournalCirculation
Volume136
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Consensus
Decision Making
Cardiovascular Diseases
Referral and Consultation
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • AHA scientific statements
  • Meta-analysis as topic
  • Methodology
  • Prevention and control
  • Research
  • Review
  • Standards
  • Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

Methodological standards for meta-analyses and qualitative systematic reviews of cardiac prevention and treatment studies a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. / Rao, Goutham; Lopez-Jimenez, Francisco; Boyd, Jack; D'Amico, Frank; Durant, Nefertiti H.; Hlatky, Mark A.; Howard, George; Kirley, Katherine; Masi, Christopher; Powell-Wiley, Tiffany M.; Solomonides, Anthony E.; West, Colin P.; Wessel, Jennifer.

In: Circulation, Vol. 136, No. 10, 01.09.2017, p. e172-e194.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rao, G, Lopez-Jimenez, F, Boyd, J, D'Amico, F, Durant, NH, Hlatky, MA, Howard, G, Kirley, K, Masi, C, Powell-Wiley, TM, Solomonides, AE, West, CP & Wessel, J 2017, 'Methodological standards for meta-analyses and qualitative systematic reviews of cardiac prevention and treatment studies a scientific statement from the American Heart Association', Circulation, vol. 136, no. 10, pp. e172-e194. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000523
Rao, Goutham ; Lopez-Jimenez, Francisco ; Boyd, Jack ; D'Amico, Frank ; Durant, Nefertiti H. ; Hlatky, Mark A. ; Howard, George ; Kirley, Katherine ; Masi, Christopher ; Powell-Wiley, Tiffany M. ; Solomonides, Anthony E. ; West, Colin P. ; Wessel, Jennifer. / Methodological standards for meta-analyses and qualitative systematic reviews of cardiac prevention and treatment studies a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. In: Circulation. 2017 ; Vol. 136, No. 10. pp. e172-e194.
@article{aafc852425f145428c977e9beb59a446,
title = "Methodological standards for meta-analyses and qualitative systematic reviews of cardiac prevention and treatment studies a scientific statement from the American Heart Association",
abstract = "Meta-analyses are becoming increasingly popular, especially in the fields of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment. They are often considered to be a reliable source of evidence for making healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, problems among meta-analyses such as the misapplication and misinterpretation of statistical methods and tests are long-standing and widespread. The purposes of this statement are to review key steps in the development of a metaanalysis and to provide recommendations that will be useful for carrying out meta-analyses and for readers and journal editors, who must interpret the findings and gauge methodological quality. To make the statement practical and accessible, detailed descriptions of statistical methods have been omitted. Based on a survey of cardiovascular metaanalyses, published literature on methodology, expert consultation, and consensus among the writing group, key recommendations are provided. Recommendations reinforce several current practices, including protocol registration; comprehensive search strategies; methods for data extraction and abstraction; methods for identifying, measuring, and dealing with heterogeneity; and statistical methods for pooling results. Other practices should be discontinued, including the use of levels of evidence and evidence hierarchies to gauge the value and impact of different study designs (including meta-analyses) and the use of structured tools to assess the quality of studies to be included in a metaanalysis. We also recommend choosing a pooling model for conventional meta-analyses (fixed effect or random effects) on the basis of clinical and methodological similarities among studies to be included, rather than the results of a test for statistical heterogeneity.",
keywords = "AHA scientific statements, Meta-analysis as topic, Methodology, Prevention and control, Research, Review, Standards, Therapeutics",
author = "Goutham Rao and Francisco Lopez-Jimenez and Jack Boyd and Frank D'Amico and Durant, {Nefertiti H.} and Hlatky, {Mark A.} and George Howard and Katherine Kirley and Christopher Masi and Powell-Wiley, {Tiffany M.} and Solomonides, {Anthony E.} and West, {Colin P.} and Jennifer Wessel",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1161/CIR.0000000000000523",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "136",
pages = "e172--e194",
journal = "Circulation",
issn = "0009-7322",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methodological standards for meta-analyses and qualitative systematic reviews of cardiac prevention and treatment studies a scientific statement from the American Heart Association

AU - Rao, Goutham

AU - Lopez-Jimenez, Francisco

AU - Boyd, Jack

AU - D'Amico, Frank

AU - Durant, Nefertiti H.

AU - Hlatky, Mark A.

AU - Howard, George

AU - Kirley, Katherine

AU - Masi, Christopher

AU - Powell-Wiley, Tiffany M.

AU - Solomonides, Anthony E.

AU - West, Colin P.

AU - Wessel, Jennifer

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - Meta-analyses are becoming increasingly popular, especially in the fields of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment. They are often considered to be a reliable source of evidence for making healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, problems among meta-analyses such as the misapplication and misinterpretation of statistical methods and tests are long-standing and widespread. The purposes of this statement are to review key steps in the development of a metaanalysis and to provide recommendations that will be useful for carrying out meta-analyses and for readers and journal editors, who must interpret the findings and gauge methodological quality. To make the statement practical and accessible, detailed descriptions of statistical methods have been omitted. Based on a survey of cardiovascular metaanalyses, published literature on methodology, expert consultation, and consensus among the writing group, key recommendations are provided. Recommendations reinforce several current practices, including protocol registration; comprehensive search strategies; methods for data extraction and abstraction; methods for identifying, measuring, and dealing with heterogeneity; and statistical methods for pooling results. Other practices should be discontinued, including the use of levels of evidence and evidence hierarchies to gauge the value and impact of different study designs (including meta-analyses) and the use of structured tools to assess the quality of studies to be included in a metaanalysis. We also recommend choosing a pooling model for conventional meta-analyses (fixed effect or random effects) on the basis of clinical and methodological similarities among studies to be included, rather than the results of a test for statistical heterogeneity.

AB - Meta-analyses are becoming increasingly popular, especially in the fields of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment. They are often considered to be a reliable source of evidence for making healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, problems among meta-analyses such as the misapplication and misinterpretation of statistical methods and tests are long-standing and widespread. The purposes of this statement are to review key steps in the development of a metaanalysis and to provide recommendations that will be useful for carrying out meta-analyses and for readers and journal editors, who must interpret the findings and gauge methodological quality. To make the statement practical and accessible, detailed descriptions of statistical methods have been omitted. Based on a survey of cardiovascular metaanalyses, published literature on methodology, expert consultation, and consensus among the writing group, key recommendations are provided. Recommendations reinforce several current practices, including protocol registration; comprehensive search strategies; methods for data extraction and abstraction; methods for identifying, measuring, and dealing with heterogeneity; and statistical methods for pooling results. Other practices should be discontinued, including the use of levels of evidence and evidence hierarchies to gauge the value and impact of different study designs (including meta-analyses) and the use of structured tools to assess the quality of studies to be included in a metaanalysis. We also recommend choosing a pooling model for conventional meta-analyses (fixed effect or random effects) on the basis of clinical and methodological similarities among studies to be included, rather than the results of a test for statistical heterogeneity.

KW - AHA scientific statements

KW - Meta-analysis as topic

KW - Methodology

KW - Prevention and control

KW - Research

KW - Review

KW - Standards

KW - Therapeutics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030442176&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85030442176&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000523

DO - 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000523

M3 - Article

C2 - 28784624

AN - SCOPUS:85030442176

VL - 136

SP - e172-e194

JO - Circulation

JF - Circulation

SN - 0009-7322

IS - 10

ER -