12.7 Reporting standards for meta-analyses

Meta-analyses are crucial for synthesizing research findings in communication studies. They provide a comprehensive overview of existing evidence, helping researchers identify patterns and draw robust conclusions.

Reporting standards ensure transparency and reproducibility in meta-analyses. By following guidelines like PRISMA and MOOSE, researchers can effectively communicate their methods, results, and limitations, allowing others to evaluate and build upon their work.

Overview of meta-analysis reporting

• Meta-analysis reporting standards ensure transparency and reproducibility in advanced communication research methods
• Proper reporting allows other researchers to evaluate the quality and validity of meta-analytic findings
• Adhering to established guidelines improves the overall quality and impact of meta-analyses in the field

Key reporting guidelines

PRISMA statement

Top images from around the web for PRISMA statement

• 

  Guidelines for performing Systematic Reviews – MetoDHology View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Home - Systematic Reviews - Research Guides at UCLA Library View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews | The BMJ View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Guidelines for performing Systematic Reviews – MetoDHology View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Home - Systematic Reviews - Research Guides at UCLA Library View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for PRISMA statement

• 

  Guidelines for performing Systematic Reviews – MetoDHology View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Home - Systematic Reviews - Research Guides at UCLA Library View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews | The BMJ View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Guidelines for performing Systematic Reviews – MetoDHology View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Home - Systematic Reviews - Research Guides at UCLA Library View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
• Consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram
• Guides researchers through the essential elements of meta-analysis reporting
• Emphasizes transparent reporting of search strategy, study selection, and data extraction
• Widely adopted across various disciplines, including communication research

MOOSE guidelines

• Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)
• Developed specifically for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies
• Includes a comprehensive checklist of 35 items
• Addresses unique challenges in synthesizing observational research
• Emphasizes clear reporting of methods used to identify and select studies

Cochrane Handbook recommendations

• Provides detailed guidance for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
• Updated regularly to reflect current best practices in research synthesis
• Covers all aspects of the meta-analysis process, from formulating research questions to interpreting results
• Emphasizes the importance of assessing risk of bias in included studies
• Recommends using standardized tools for data extraction and quality assessment

Essential components of reports

Abstract structure

• Structured format with background, objectives, methods, results, and conclusions
• Concise summary of key findings and implications (typically 250-300 words)
• Inclusion of primary effect sizes and confidence intervals
• Clear statement of the research question and population studied
• Brief description of search strategy and inclusion criteria

Introduction elements

• Clear rationale for conducting the meta-analysis
• Contextualization of the research question within existing literature
• Explanation of the potential impact and relevance of the study
• Clearly stated objectives and hypotheses
• Brief overview of the methodological approach

Methods section requirements

• Detailed description of search strategy, including databases and search terms
• Explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria for study selection
• Explanation of data extraction procedures and tools used
• Description of statistical methods employed for meta-analysis
• Outline of approaches for assessing heterogeneity and publication bias

Results presentation

• Clear reporting of study selection process (PRISMA flow diagram)
• Summary of characteristics of included studies
• Presentation of main effect sizes and confidence intervals
• Forest plots to visually represent individual study and pooled effects
• Subgroup and sensitivity analyses results, if applicable

Discussion content

• Interpretation of main findings in context of existing literature
• Exploration of potential sources of heterogeneity
• Discussion of strengths and limitations of the meta-analysis
• Implications for practice and policy
• Recommendations for future research based on identified gaps

Quality assessment in reporting

Risk of bias evaluation

• Systematic assessment of potential biases in included studies
• Use of standardized tools (Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale)
• Consideration of selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, and attrition bias
• Clear reporting of risk of bias assessment results
• Discussion of how bias may impact the overall findings

Heterogeneity assessment

• Quantification of between-study variability using statistical measures ($I^2$, $Q$ statistic)
• Exploration of potential sources of heterogeneity through subgroup analyses
• Consideration of clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity
• Reporting of heterogeneity assessment results in both narrative and statistical forms
• Discussion of implications of heterogeneity for interpretation of findings

Publication bias analysis

• Assessment of potential bias due to selective publication of positive results
• Use of funnel plots to visually inspect asymmetry in effect size distribution
• Application of statistical tests (Egger's test, trim-and-fill method)
• Consideration of other small-study effects that may influence results
• Clear reporting of publication bias analysis results and their implications

Statistical reporting standards

Effect size measures

• Clear definition and justification of chosen effect size metric
• Consistent reporting of effect sizes with appropriate precision
• Use of standardized mean differences for continuous outcomes
• Odds ratios or risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes
• Transformation of effect sizes when necessary for comparability across studies

Confidence intervals

• Reporting of 95% confidence intervals for all main effect estimates
• Clear interpretation of confidence intervals in the context of the research question
• Use of confidence intervals to assess the precision of effect estimates
• Consideration of confidence intervals in determining statistical significance
• Graphical representation of confidence intervals in forest plots

Forest plots

• Visual representation of individual study effects and the pooled effect
• Inclusion of study names, effect sizes, confidence intervals, and weights
• Clear labeling of x-axis to indicate direction and magnitude of effects
• Use of appropriate scales to accurately represent effect sizes
• Inclusion of subgroup analyses in forest plots when applicable

Funnel plots

• Graphical tool for assessing potential publication bias
• Plot of effect size against a measure of study precision (standard error)
• Interpretation of funnel plot asymmetry as potential indicator of bias
• Consideration of alternative explanations for asymmetry (heterogeneity)
• Use of contour-enhanced funnel plots to distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry

Transparency in methodology

Search strategy documentation

• Detailed description of databases searched, including dates of coverage
• Full search terms and Boolean operators used for each database
• Documentation of any additional sources (grey literature, hand searching)
• Reporting of date last searched for each database
• Inclusion of full search strategy as an appendix or supplementary material

Inclusion criteria specification

• Clear definition of PICOS elements (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design)
• Explicit statement of inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Justification for chosen criteria based on research question and objectives
• Description of any limitations on publication date, language, or study type
• Explanation of how criteria were applied during the screening process

Data extraction processes

• Description of the data extraction form or tool used
• Explanation of the process for extracting data (independent extraction, reconciliation)
• List of all variables extracted from primary studies
• Procedures for handling missing data or contacting study authors
• Methods for ensuring consistency and accuracy in data extraction

Subgroup and sensitivity analyses

Rationale for analyses

• Clear justification for planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses
• Explanation of how subgroups were defined and selected
• Description of hypotheses related to potential effect modifiers
• Consideration of clinical and methodological heterogeneity in analysis planning
• Distinction between a priori and post hoc analyses

Reporting of findings

• Presentation of results for each subgroup analysis conducted
• Clear comparison of effects between subgroups
• Reporting of statistical tests for subgroup differences
• Description of sensitivity analyses and their impact on main findings
• Interpretation of subgroup and sensitivity analyses in the context of overall results

Limitations and future directions

Addressing study limitations

• Acknowledgment of limitations in the search strategy or study selection
• Discussion of potential biases in included studies
• Consideration of limitations in the meta-analytic methods used
• Reflection on the generalizability of findings to different populations or contexts
• Exploration of how limitations may impact the interpretation of results

Implications for future research

• Identification of gaps in the current literature revealed by the meta-analysis
• Suggestions for future primary studies to address unanswered questions
• Recommendations for improving methodological quality in future research
• Proposals for additional meta-analyses on related topics or subgroups
• Discussion of emerging trends or areas of potential growth in the field

Ethical considerations

Conflicts of interest disclosure

• Clear statement of any potential conflicts of interest for all authors
• Disclosure of financial or non-financial relationships that may influence the research
• Explanation of how potential conflicts were managed or mitigated
• Adherence to journal-specific guidelines for conflict of interest reporting
• Consideration of potential conflicts in the interpretation of findings

Funding source reporting

• Explicit statement of funding sources for the meta-analysis
• Description of the role of funders in the study design, execution, and reporting
• Disclosure of any restrictions on publication or data sharing imposed by funders
• Consideration of how funding sources may impact the perception of the research
• Adherence to funding agency requirements for open access or data sharing

Dissemination of findings

Open access vs traditional publishing

• Consideration of open access options to increase visibility and accessibility
• Discussion of potential impact on citation rates and research dissemination
• Explanation of copyright and licensing options for open access publications
• Comparison of costs and benefits associated with different publishing models
• Adherence to funder or institutional requirements for open access publishing

Preprint servers

• Use of preprint servers to share early versions of the meta-analysis
• Explanation of the benefits of preprints for rapid dissemination of findings
• Consideration of potential drawbacks, such as lack of peer review
• Description of how preprints are updated or linked to final published versions
• Discussion of the role of preprints in fostering open science practices

Software and tools

Meta-analysis software options

• Overview of commonly used software packages (RevMan, Comprehensive Meta-Analysis)
• Comparison of features and capabilities of different software options
• Discussion of open-source alternatives (R packages, OpenMeta[Analyst])
• Consideration of software-specific requirements for data input and analysis
• Explanation of how software choice may impact analysis and reporting

Data management systems

• Description of tools used for organizing and storing extracted data
• Explanation of version control methods for maintaining data integrity
• Discussion of collaborative platforms for multi-reviewer data extraction
• Consideration of data security and privacy measures
• Exploration of options for making data publicly available (data repositories)

Peer review considerations

Addressing reviewer comments

• Strategies for responding to methodological critiques of the meta-analysis
• Explanation of how reviewer suggestions were incorporated into revisions
• Discussion of approaches for handling conflicting reviewer recommendations
• Consideration of the balance between addressing reviewer concerns and maintaining the original research vision
• Importance of clear and respectful communication with editors and reviewers

Revisions and resubmissions

• Process for making major vs minor revisions to the meta-analysis report
• Strategies for organizing and tracking changes made during the revision process
• Explanation of how to handle requests for additional analyses or sensitivity tests
• Consideration of timelines and deadlines for resubmission
• Discussion of when to consider alternative journals for publication