A Methodological Evaluation of Meta-Analyses in tDCS - Motor Learning Research

Taym Alsalti, Ian Hussey, Malte Elson, Robert Krause, Steffi Pohl
{"title":"A Methodological Evaluation of Meta-Analyses in tDCS - Motor Learning Research","authors":"Taym Alsalti, Ian Hussey, Malte Elson, Robert Krause, Steffi Pohl","doi":"10.1101/2024.07.26.24311068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With transcranial direct-current stimulation's (tDCS) rising popularity both in motor learning research and as a commercial product, it is becoming increasingly important that the quality of evidence on its effectiveness be evaluated. Special attention should be paid to meta-analyses, as they usually have a large impact on research and clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of meta-analyses estimating the effect of tDCS on motor learning with respect to reproducibility as the main focus, and reporting quality and publication bias control as secondary aspects. The three meta-analyses we reviewed largely adhered to PRISMA reporting guidelines and reported the primary effect sizes and sampling variances / confidence intervals they calculated, enabling successful reproductions of pooled effect size estimates. However, akin to previous meta-research reviews with similar aims, we found the methods and results sections of the meta-analyses to be severely underreported, which compromises the ability to judge the soundness of the methodological procedure adopted as well as its reproducibility. While publication bias detection methods were applied, the approaches chosen do not allow for well informed decisions about the presence or extent of publication bias. These results reemphasise the need to clearly report on the methods in meta-analyses and to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses.","PeriodicalId":501453,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.26.24311068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With transcranial direct-current stimulation's (tDCS) rising popularity both in motor learning research and as a commercial product, it is becoming increasingly important that the quality of evidence on its effectiveness be evaluated. Special attention should be paid to meta-analyses, as they usually have a large impact on research and clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of meta-analyses estimating the effect of tDCS on motor learning with respect to reproducibility as the main focus, and reporting quality and publication bias control as secondary aspects. The three meta-analyses we reviewed largely adhered to PRISMA reporting guidelines and reported the primary effect sizes and sampling variances / confidence intervals they calculated, enabling successful reproductions of pooled effect size estimates. However, akin to previous meta-research reviews with similar aims, we found the methods and results sections of the meta-analyses to be severely underreported, which compromises the ability to judge the soundness of the methodological procedure adopted as well as its reproducibility. While publication bias detection methods were applied, the approaches chosen do not allow for well informed decisions about the presence or extent of publication bias. These results reemphasise the need to clearly report on the methods in meta-analyses and to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
tDCS 元分析方法评估 - 运动学习研究
随着经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)在运动学习研究和商业产品领域的普及,对其有效性的证据质量进行评估变得越来越重要。应特别关注荟萃分析,因为它们通常会对研究和临床实践产生重大影响。本研究的目的是评估估算 tDCS 对运动学习效果的荟萃分析的方法学质量,重点是可重复性,其次是报告质量和出版偏倚控制。我们审查的三项荟萃分析基本遵守了 PRISMA 报告指南,并报告了其计算的主要效应大小和抽样方差/置信区间,从而成功地再现了汇集效应大小估计值。然而,与以往具有类似目的的荟萃研究综述相似,我们发现荟萃分析的方法和结果部分的报告严重不足,这影响了判断所采用的方法程序是否合理及其可重复性的能力。虽然采用了发表偏倚检测方法,但所选择的方法并不能对发表偏倚的存在或程度做出明智的判断。这些结果再次强调了明确报告荟萃分析方法和评估荟萃分析质量的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS: INTERPRETATION OF NON-STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RESULTS IN RANDOMISED CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS IN REHABILITATION Targeted deep brain stimulation of the motor thalamus improves speech and swallowing motor functions after cerebral lesions Normal feeding movements expressed by dimensionality reduction of whole-body joint motions using principal component analysis Impact of early postoperative ambulation on gait recovery after hip fracture surgery: A multicenter cohort study Backward Locomotor Treadmill Training on Walking and Balance Outcomes in Stroke Survivors: A Randomized Clinical Trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1