Open AccessCharacteristics and Methodological Quality of Meta‐Analyses on Hypertension Treatments—A Cross‐Sectional Study
Author(s) -
Wu Xin Yin,
Du Xin Jian,
Ho Robin S.T.,
Lee Clarence C.Y.,
Yip Benjamin H.K.,
Wong Martin C.S.,
Wong Samuel Y.S.,
Chung Vincent C.H.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the journal of clinical hypertension
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.909
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1751-7176
pISSN - 1524-6175
DOI - 10.1111/jch.12889
Subject(s) - medicine , meta analysis , inclusion (mineral) , medline , quality (philosophy) , systematic review , affect (linguistics) , family medicine , psychology , social psychology , philosophy , epistemology , communication , political science , law
Methodological quality of meta‐analyses on hypertension treatments can affect treatment decision‐making. The authors conducted a cross‐sectional study to investigate the methodological quality of meta‐analyses on hypertension treatments. One hundred and fifty‐eight meta‐analyses were identified. Overall, methodological quality was unsatisfactory in the following aspects: comprehensive reporting of financial support (1.9%), provision of included and excluded lists of studies (22.8%), inclusion of grey literature (27.2%), and inclusion of protocols (32.9%). The 126 non‐Cochrane meta‐analyses had poor performance on almost all the methodological items. Non‐Cochrane meta‐analyses focused on nonpharmacologic treatments were more likely to consider scientific quality of included studies when making conclusions. The 32 Cochrane meta‐analyses generally had good methodological quality except for comprehensive reporting of the sources of support. These results highlight the need for cautious interpretation of these meta‐analyses, especially among physicians and policy makers when guidelines are formulated. Future meta‐analyses should pay attention to improving these methodological aspects.