Modern Meta-Analytic Methods in Prevention Science: Introduction to the Special Issue

Meta-analyses that statistically synthesize evidence from multiple research studies can play an important role in advancing evidence-informed prevention science. When done in the context of a well-conducted systematic review, meta-analysis is a powerful tool for synthesizing evidence and exploring research questions that are difficult to address in individual studies, such as the association of individual study limitations on intervention effect estimates, replicability of empirical findings, and variation of effect estimates across populations and settings. Alongside the rapid growth in the number of published reviews and meta-analyses, there has been a parallel growth in the development of meta-analytic techniques to handle the increasingly complex types of questions and types of evidence relevant to prevention science. Despite this rapid evolution of meta-analytic techniques and approaches, there is still a lag between the development of new techniques and their uptake by researchers in the field. This paper serves as a brief introduction to this special issue of Prevention Science, entitled "Modern Meta-Analytic Methods in Prevention Science," which highlights recent developments in meta-analytic methods and demonstrates their application to prevention research. This special issue makes an important contribution to the field by ensuring these methodological advances are widely accessible to prevention science researchers, thereby improving their uptake and utilization, and ultimately improving the utility and rigor of research syntheses for informing evidence-based decision making in prevention.

Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports

Background

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly “Final Research Reports” of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI’s Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted appropriately, e.g., free of spin.

Methods

Two independent raters assessed PCORI peer review feedback sent to authors. We calculated the proportion of reports in which spin was identified during peer review, and the types of spin identified. We included reports submitted by April 2018 with at least one associated journal article. The same raters then assessed whether authors addressed reviewers’ comments about spin. The raters also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles.

Results

We included 64 PCORI-funded projects. Peer reviewers or editors identified spin in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin related to 47/55 (85%) of the reports.

Of 110 associated journal articles, PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 (40%) articles, of which 27/44 (61%) contained the same spin that was identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for articles accepted before and after PCORI peer review (63% vs 58%).

Discussion

Just as spin is common in journal articles and press releases, we found that most reports submitted to PCORI included spin. While most spin was mitigated during the funder’s peer review process, we found no evidence that review of PCORI reports influenced spin in journal articles. Funders could explore interventions aimed at reducing spin in published articles of studies they support.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41073-021-00119-1.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.

Clearinghouse Standards of Evidence on the Transparency, Openness, and Reproducibility of Intervention Evaluations

Clearinghouses are influential repositories of information on the effectiveness of social interventions. To identify which interventions are “evidence-based,” clearinghouses review intervention evaluations using published standards of evidence that focus primarily on internal validity and causal inferences. Open science practices can improve trust in evidence from evaluations on the effectiveness of social interventions. Including open science practices in clearinghouse standards of evidence is one of many efforts that could increase confidence in designations of interventions as “evidence-based.” In this study, we examined the policies, procedures, and practices of 10 federal evidence clearinghouses that review preventive interventions—an important and influential subset of all evidence clearinghouses. We found that seven consider at least one open science practice when evaluating interventions: replication (6 of 10 clearinghouses), public availability of results (6), investigator conflicts of interest (3), design and analysis transparency (3), study registration (2), and protocol sharing (1). We did not identify any policies, procedures, or practices related to analysis plan registration, data sharing, code sharing, material sharing, and citation standards. We provide a framework with specific recommendations to help federal and other evidence clearinghouses implement the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines. Our proposed “TOP Guidelines for Clearinghouses” includes reporting whether evaluations used open science practices, incorporating open science practices in their standards for receiving “evidence-based” designations, and verifying that evaluations used open science practices. Doing so could increase the trustworthiness of evidence used for policy making and support improvements throughout the evidence ecosystem.

Restoring invisible and abandoned trials of gabapentin for neuropathic pain: a clinical and methodological investigation

INTRODUCTION

Gabapentin (Neurontin) is prescribed widely for conditions for which it has not been approved by regulators, including certain neuropathic pain conditions. There is limited evidence that gabapentin is safe and effective for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Published trial reports, and systematic reviews based on published trial reports, mislead patients and providers because information about gabapentin's harms has been published only partly. We confirmed that trials conducted by the drug developer have been abandoned, and we plan to conduct a restoration with support from the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials Support Centre (https://restoringtrials.org/).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this study, we will analyse and report the harms that were observed in six trials of gabapentin, which have not been reported publicly (eg, in journal articles). We will use clinical study reports and individual participant data to identify and report the harms observed in each individual trial and to summarise the harms observed across all six trials. We will report all adverse events observed in the included trials by sharing deidentified data and summary tables on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/w8puv/). Additionally, we will produce a summary report that describes differences between the randomised groups in each trial and across trials for prespecified harms outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We will use secondary data. This study was determined to be exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB) review (protocol #1910607198).

Development of a checklist to detect errors in meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions: study protocol

Background : Systematic reviews underpin clinical practice and policies that guide healthcare decisions. A core component of many systematic reviews is meta-analysis, which is a statistical synthesis of results across studies. Errors in the conduct and interpretation of meta-analysis can lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of interventions; and studies have shown that these errors are common. Enabling peer reviewers to better detect errors in meta-analysis through the use of a checklist provides an opportunity for these errors to be rectified before publication. To our knowledge, no such checklist exists. Objective : To develop and evaluate a checklist to detect errors in pairwise meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions. Methods : We will undertake a four-step process to develop the checklist. First, we will undertake a systematic review of studies that have evaluated errors in the conduct and interpretation of meta-analysis to generate a bank of items to consider for the checklist. Second, we will undertake a survey of systematic review methodologists and statisticians to seek their views on which items, of the bank of items generated in step 1, are most important to include in the checklist. Third, we will hold a virtual meeting to agree upon which items to include in the checklist. Fourth, before finalising the checklist, we will pilot with editors and peer reviewers of journals. Conclusion : The developed checklist is intended to help journal editors and peer reviewers identify errors in the application and interpretation of meta-analyses in systematic reviews. Fewer errors in the conduct and improved interpretation will lead to more accurate review findings and conclusions to inform clinical practice.

Evaluating implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines: the TRUST process for rating journal policies, procedures, and practices

BACKGROUND

The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor is a metric to describe the extent to which journals have adopted the TOP Guidelines in their policies. Systematic methods and rating instruments are needed to calculate the TOP Factor. Moreover, implementation of these open science policies depends on journal procedures and practices, for which TOP provides no standards or rating instruments.

METHODS

We describe a process for assessing journal policies, procedures, and practices according to the TOP Guidelines. We developed this process as part of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) Initiative to advance open science in the social intervention research ecosystem. We also provide new instruments for rating journal instructions to authors (policies), manuscript submission systems (procedures), and published articles (practices) according to standards in the TOP Guidelines. In addition, we describe how to determine the TOP Factor score for a journal, calculate reliability of journal ratings, and assess coherence among a journal's policies, procedures, and practices. As a demonstration of this process, we describe a protocol for studying approximately 345 influential journals that have published research used to inform evidence-based policy.

DISCUSSION

The TRUST Process includes systematic methods and rating instruments for assessing and facilitating implementation of the TOP Guidelines by journals across disciplines. Our study of journals publishing influential social intervention research will provide a comprehensive account of whether these journals have policies, procedures, and practices that are consistent with standards for open science and thereby facilitate the publication of trustworthy findings to inform evidence-based policy. Through this demonstration, we expect to identify ways to refine the TOP Guidelines and the TOP Factor. Refinements could include: improving templates for adoption in journal instructions to authors, manuscript submission systems, and published articles; revising explanatory guidance intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the TOP Guidelines; and clarifying the distinctions among different levels of implementation. Research materials are available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/txyr3/ .

Creating a Program to Support Registering and Reporting Clinical Trials at Johns Hopkins University

PROBLEM

The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) require that many clinical trials register and report results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Noncompliance with these policies denies research participants and scientists access to potentially relevant findings and could lead to monetary penalties or loss of funding. After discovering hundreds of potentially noncompliant trials affiliated with the institution, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (JHUSOM) sought to develop a program to support research teams with registration and reporting requirements.

APPROACH

JHUSOM conducted a baseline assessment of institutional compliance in 2015, launched the ClinicalTrials.gov Program in June 2016, and expanded the program to the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center in April 2018. The program is innovative in its comprehensive approach, and it was among the first to bring a large number of trials into compliance.

OUTCOMES

From September 2015 to September 2020, JHUSOM brought completed and ongoing trials into compliance with FDAAA and NIH policies and maintained almost perfect compliance for new trials. During this period, the proportion of trials potentially noncompliant with the FDAAA decreased from 44% (339/774) to 2% (32/1,304).

NEXT STEPS

JHUSOM continues to develop and evaluate tools and procedures that facilitate trial registration and results reporting. In collaboration with other academic medical centers, JHUSOM plans to share resources and to identify and disseminate best practices. This report identifies practical lessons for institutions that might develop similar programs.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.