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

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.

Keywords

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