Skip to main content
main-content

13.03.2019 | Original Article – Cancer Research | Ausgabe 5/2019

Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 5/2019

An overview on the methodological and reporting quality of dose–response meta-analysis on cancer prevention

Zeitschrift:
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology > Ausgabe 5/2019
Autoren:
Chang Xu, Yu Liu, Chao Zhang, Joey S. W. Kwong, Jian-Guo Zhou, Long Ge, Jing-Yu Huang, Tong-Zu Liu
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00432-019-02869-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Abstract

Background

Dose–response meta-analysis (DRMA) has been widely used in exploring cancer risk factors. Understanding the quality of published DRMAs on cancer risk factors may be beneficial for informed prevention for cancer.

Methods

We searched eligible DRMAs from 1st January 2011 to 31st-July-2017. The modified AMSTAR 1.0 (15 items) and PRISMA checklist (26 items) were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of included DRMAs. We compared the adherence rate of these items by journal type, publication years, region, and funding information, in prior.

Results

We included 260 DRMAs. Colorectal, breast, prostate, and lung were the four most commonly investigated cancers. For methodological quality, 6 out of 15 items were adhered by less than 30% of the DRMAs, 2 by less than 60%, only 7 of which by 80% or more. For reporting quality, 3 out of 26 items were adhered by less than 30% of the DRMAs, 1 by less than 80% (> 30%), and 20 of which by 80% or more. Those published in general journal, published more recently, and received any financial support have better methodological (Rate differences, RDs = 10–36%; P < 0.05) and reporting adherence (RDs = 12–36%; P < 0.05). DRMAs by Asian author tend to be less qualified than by European and American.

Conclusions

The methodological quality of DRMAs on cancer risk factors is worrisome that the findings of them may be deflective; more efforts are needed to improve the validity of it.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt e.Med zum Sonderpreis bestellen!

Sichern Sie sich jetzt Ihr e.Med-Abo und sparen Sie 50 %!

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Zusatzmaterial
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2019

Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 5/2019 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Sie können e.Med Innere Medizin 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.

  2. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.