A warning to readers about the term metanalysis in non-systematic reviews about diabetic retinopathy: documental study

Authors

  • Vania Mozetic Ophthalmologist at Instituto Dante Pazzanese de Cardiologia
  • Valeria Mozetic de Barros Instituto de Cardiologia Dante Pazzanese, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP).
  • Lucas Denadai Ophthalmology Department of Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
  • Matheus Ferreira Santos da Cruz
  • Natasha Ferreira Santos da Cruz Ophthalmology Department of Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
  • Nilva Simeren Bueno de Moraes Ophthalmology Department of Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17267/2675-021Xevidence.v2i2.3416

Keywords:

Diabetic Retinopathy. Publication biases. Meta-analysis as topic. Evidence based health.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis is a very seductive term in scientific papers because it summarizes a compilation of quantitative results; however its interpretation must be done carefully. OBJECTIVE: Search the diabetic retinopathy intervention literature for the occurrence of the term meta-analysis in non-systematic reviews, showing the reader the frequency that they occur and alert to the dangers that inadequate interpretation can cause. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An extensive search in Pubmed was performed for works with the term meta-analysis in the title, abstract and keywords (ti, abs, kw) without date or language restriction. The selected papers were read fully in search of characteristics of systematic review (SR) or not. The results are presented objectively with a critical analysis of each analysed term. RESULTS: We found 39 papers with the term meta-analysis on (ti, abs, kw). 12 (30.8%) of them did not write the study design in the abstract. 14 (35.9%) did not present the search strategy, 15(38.5%) did not mention having a language or date restriction. 23 (59%) did not mention the SR model that was followed and only five (12.8%) registered the protocol. Only two articles fulfilled the RS requirements. CONCLUSION: We found in the literature reviews of selected studies with meta-analysis, not configuring an SR that can induce the reader to interpret it as an SR. The term meta-analysis cannot be interpreted as the panacea for the solution of all doubts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2021-03-31

How to Cite

Mozetic, V., Barros, V. M. de, Denadai, L., Cruz, M. F. S. da, Cruz, N. F. S. da, & Moraes, N. S. B. de. (2021). A warning to readers about the term metanalysis in non-systematic reviews about diabetic retinopathy: documental study. Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 2(2), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.17267/2675-021Xevidence.v2i2.3416

Issue

Section

Research Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)