The OBGYN Editors' Integrity Group (OGEIG), Vincenzo Berghella
<p>Meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical technique used to combine and analyze data from the results of multiple previous independent studies on a particular topic, to derive overall conclusions or effect estimates. In general (but not exclusively), meta-analyses are based on RCTs. The results are often used to develop standard practice or clinical guidelines. However, RCTs may be inaccurate or fabricated, leading to journal withdrawal or retraction. This article aims to expand upon the list of RCT quality criteria for authors of meta-analyses of RCTs, so that low-quality and fabricated studies are excluded from meta-analyses.</p><p>The editors in the group were invited to participate in monthly or bimonthly calls regarding trustworthiness in OBGYN publishing, with the aim of preventing publication of untrustworthy science in women's health. Using data from the published literature, including our prior work,<span><sup>1, 2</sup></span> Cochrane guidance,<span><sup>3</sup></span> the TRACT Checklist,<span><sup>4</sup></span> the author instructions of the various journals, and other publications related to trustworthiness of meta-analyses of RCTs,<span><sup>5</sup></span> criteria for meta-analyses were reviewed, reaching consensus by majority.</p><p>By consensus, 21 quality criteria were agreed upon by the editors. The aim is for authors to check and confirm the quality criteria for <i>each</i> identified RCT when carrying out a meta-analysis of RCTs (Tables 1 and 2). These criteria help to identify trustworthy RCTs, and are assigned to two groups: absolute criteria and “other quality” criteria. “Absolute” trustworthiness criteria are those that, if not met, would suggest noninclusion in the main results of meta-analyses of RCTs (Table 1). “Other quality” criteria are those that, if not met, would suggest lower quality of RCTs (Table 2). In addition, the meta-analysis should be prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (or a similar international, publicly accessible database, eg INPLASY; Research Registry – Registry of Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis).</p><p>The consensus decision was that the abstract and primary analysis of meta-analyses should report only trustworthy, “high-quality” RCTs that meet all of the “absolute” criteria (Table 1). Authors of meta-analyses are encouraged to contact RCT authors for additional information regarding the criteria in Tables 1 and 2 if the details cannot be found in the published manuscript or registered protocol. At a minimum, all coauthors of meta-analyses should confirm at the point of submission that each included article meets the criteria included in Table 1. Individual journals may also ask authors to confirm that each article meets the criteria in Table 2, or may go further and ask authors to complete and submit a checklist for the criteria in Tables 1 and 2 for each article included in the meta-analysis. In general, RCTs that are published as an abstract only seldom report all criteria
{"title":"Trustworthiness criteria for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies: OBGYN Journal guidelines","authors":"The OBGYN Editors' Integrity Group (OGEIG), Vincenzo Berghella","doi":"10.1111/aogs.14942","DOIUrl":"10.1111/aogs.14942","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical technique used to combine and analyze data from the results of multiple previous independent studies on a particular topic, to derive overall conclusions or effect estimates. In general (but not exclusively), meta-analyses are based on RCTs. The results are often used to develop standard practice or clinical guidelines. However, RCTs may be inaccurate or fabricated, leading to journal withdrawal or retraction. This article aims to expand upon the list of RCT quality criteria for authors of meta-analyses of RCTs, so that low-quality and fabricated studies are excluded from meta-analyses.</p><p>The editors in the group were invited to participate in monthly or bimonthly calls regarding trustworthiness in OBGYN publishing, with the aim of preventing publication of untrustworthy science in women's health. Using data from the published literature, including our prior work,<span><sup>1, 2</sup></span> Cochrane guidance,<span><sup>3</sup></span> the TRACT Checklist,<span><sup>4</sup></span> the author instructions of the various journals, and other publications related to trustworthiness of meta-analyses of RCTs,<span><sup>5</sup></span> criteria for meta-analyses were reviewed, reaching consensus by majority.</p><p>By consensus, 21 quality criteria were agreed upon by the editors. The aim is for authors to check and confirm the quality criteria for <i>each</i> identified RCT when carrying out a meta-analysis of RCTs (Tables 1 and 2). These criteria help to identify trustworthy RCTs, and are assigned to two groups: absolute criteria and “other quality” criteria. “Absolute” trustworthiness criteria are those that, if not met, would suggest noninclusion in the main results of meta-analyses of RCTs (Table 1). “Other quality” criteria are those that, if not met, would suggest lower quality of RCTs (Table 2). In addition, the meta-analysis should be prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (or a similar international, publicly accessible database, eg INPLASY; Research Registry – Registry of Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis).</p><p>The consensus decision was that the abstract and primary analysis of meta-analyses should report only trustworthy, “high-quality” RCTs that meet all of the “absolute” criteria (Table 1). Authors of meta-analyses are encouraged to contact RCT authors for additional information regarding the criteria in Tables 1 and 2 if the details cannot be found in the published manuscript or registered protocol. At a minimum, all coauthors of meta-analyses should confirm at the point of submission that each included article meets the criteria included in Table 1. Individual journals may also ask authors to confirm that each article meets the criteria in Table 2, or may go further and ask authors to complete and submit a checklist for the criteria in Tables 1 and 2 for each article included in the meta-analysis. In general, RCTs that are published as an abstract only seldom report all criteria","PeriodicalId":6990,"journal":{"name":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","volume":"103 11","pages":"2118-2121"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11502421/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142278648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}