An overview of systematic reviews found suboptimal reporting and methodological limitations of mediation studies investigating causal mechanisms

Aidan G. Cashin; Hopin Lee; Sarah E. Lamb; Sally Hopewell; Gemma Mansell; Christopher M. Williams; Steven J. Kamper; Nicholas Henschke; James H. Mcauley

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.005

An overview of systematic reviews found suboptimal reporting and methodological limitations of mediation studies investigating causal mechanisms

Aidan G. Cashin, Hopin Lee, Sarah E. Lamb, Sally Hopewell, Gemma Mansell, Christopher M. Williams, Steven J. Kamper, Nicholas Henschke, James H. Mcauley

College of Health and Life Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate whether systematic reviews of mediation studies identify limitations in reporting quality and methodological conduct. Study Design and Setting: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PubMed) to identify systematic reviews of studies that used mediation analysis to investigate mechanisms of health care interventions or exposures in clinical populations between 2007 and 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Summary data on the characteristics, reporting quality, and methodological conduct of the studies included in the systematic reviews were extracted independently by two reviewers. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017059834). Results: Fifty-four systematic reviews were included, representing 11 health care fields, 26 health conditions, and 2008 mediation studies. Eighteen of fifty-four systematic reviews (33%) explicitly stated that the reporting of primary studies was suboptimal. Of these, 14/18 (78%) reviews noted incomplete reporting of effect sizes and precision estimates from mediation analyses. Twenty-nine of fifty-four systematic reviews (54%) identified limitations in the methodological conduct of primary studies. Conclusion: The reporting and methodological conduct of studies investigating mechanisms in health care seems to be suboptimal. Guidance is needed to improve the quality, completeness, and transparency of mediation studies.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	60-68.e1
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	111
Early online date	20 Mar 2019
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.005
Publication status	Published - 1 Jul 2019

Bibliographical note

© 2019, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Funding: Medical Research Council (grant no. APP1126767); National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. National Institute of Health Research OUH, NHS Biomedical Research Centre.

Keywords

Causal inference
Health care
Mechanism
Mediation analysis
Overview
Quality of reporting

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.005

systematic reviews found suboptimal reporting
© 2019, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Accepted author manuscript, 0.98 MBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

Cite this

Cashin, A. G., Lee, H., Lamb, S. E., Hopewell, S., Mansell, G., Williams, C. M., Kamper, S. J., Henschke, N., & Mcauley, J. H. (2019). An overview of systematic reviews found suboptimal reporting and methodological limitations of mediation studies investigating causal mechanisms. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 111, 60-68.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.005

@article{e338d1bc71d44b45bd76fc5cb2ea5411,

title = "An overview of systematic reviews found suboptimal reporting and methodological limitations of mediation studies investigating causal mechanisms",

abstract = "Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate whether systematic reviews of mediation studies identify limitations in reporting quality and methodological conduct. Study Design and Setting: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PubMed) to identify systematic reviews of studies that used mediation analysis to investigate mechanisms of health care interventions or exposures in clinical populations between 2007 and 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Summary data on the characteristics, reporting quality, and methodological conduct of the studies included in the systematic reviews were extracted independently by two reviewers. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017059834). Results: Fifty-four systematic reviews were included, representing 11 health care fields, 26 health conditions, and 2008 mediation studies. Eighteen of fifty-four systematic reviews (33%) explicitly stated that the reporting of primary studies was suboptimal. Of these, 14/18 (78%) reviews noted incomplete reporting of effect sizes and precision estimates from mediation analyses. Twenty-nine of fifty-four systematic reviews (54%) identified limitations in the methodological conduct of primary studies. Conclusion: The reporting and methodological conduct of studies investigating mechanisms in health care seems to be suboptimal. Guidance is needed to improve the quality, completeness, and transparency of mediation studies.",

keywords = "Causal inference, Health care, Mechanism, Mediation analysis, Overview, Quality of reporting",

author = "Cashin, {Aidan G.} and Hopin Lee and Lamb, {Sarah E.} and Sally Hopewell and Gemma Mansell and Williams, {Christopher M.} and Kamper, {Steven J.} and Nicholas Henschke and Mcauley, {James H.}",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2019, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Funding: Medical Research Council (grant no. APP1126767); National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. National Institute of Health Research OUH, NHS Biomedical Research Centre.",

year = "2019",

month = jul,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.005",

language = "English",

volume = "111",

pages = "60--68.e1",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An overview of systematic reviews found suboptimal reporting and methodological limitations of mediation studies investigating causal mechanisms

AU - Cashin, Aidan G.

AU - Lee, Hopin

AU - Lamb, Sarah E.

AU - Hopewell, Sally

AU - Mansell, Gemma

AU - Williams, Christopher M.

AU - Kamper, Steven J.

AU - Henschke, Nicholas

AU - Mcauley, James H.

N1 - © 2019, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Funding: Medical Research Council (grant no. APP1126767); National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. National Institute of Health Research OUH, NHS Biomedical Research Centre.

PY - 2019/7/1

Y1 - 2019/7/1

N2 - Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate whether systematic reviews of mediation studies identify limitations in reporting quality and methodological conduct. Study Design and Setting: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PubMed) to identify systematic reviews of studies that used mediation analysis to investigate mechanisms of health care interventions or exposures in clinical populations between 2007 and 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Summary data on the characteristics, reporting quality, and methodological conduct of the studies included in the systematic reviews were extracted independently by two reviewers. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017059834). Results: Fifty-four systematic reviews were included, representing 11 health care fields, 26 health conditions, and 2008 mediation studies. Eighteen of fifty-four systematic reviews (33%) explicitly stated that the reporting of primary studies was suboptimal. Of these, 14/18 (78%) reviews noted incomplete reporting of effect sizes and precision estimates from mediation analyses. Twenty-nine of fifty-four systematic reviews (54%) identified limitations in the methodological conduct of primary studies. Conclusion: The reporting and methodological conduct of studies investigating mechanisms in health care seems to be suboptimal. Guidance is needed to improve the quality, completeness, and transparency of mediation studies.

AB - Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate whether systematic reviews of mediation studies identify limitations in reporting quality and methodological conduct. Study Design and Setting: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched four databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PubMed) to identify systematic reviews of studies that used mediation analysis to investigate mechanisms of health care interventions or exposures in clinical populations between 2007 and 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Summary data on the characteristics, reporting quality, and methodological conduct of the studies included in the systematic reviews were extracted independently by two reviewers. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017059834). Results: Fifty-four systematic reviews were included, representing 11 health care fields, 26 health conditions, and 2008 mediation studies. Eighteen of fifty-four systematic reviews (33%) explicitly stated that the reporting of primary studies was suboptimal. Of these, 14/18 (78%) reviews noted incomplete reporting of effect sizes and precision estimates from mediation analyses. Twenty-nine of fifty-four systematic reviews (54%) identified limitations in the methodological conduct of primary studies. Conclusion: The reporting and methodological conduct of studies investigating mechanisms in health care seems to be suboptimal. Guidance is needed to improve the quality, completeness, and transparency of mediation studies.

KW - Causal inference

KW - Health care

KW - Mechanism

KW - Mediation analysis

KW - Overview

KW - Quality of reporting

UR - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0895435618310011

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064435982&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.005

M3 - Review article

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 111

SP - 60-68.e1

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ER -

An overview of systematic reviews found suboptimal reporting and methodological limitations of mediation studies investigating causal mechanisms

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this