Skip to main content

Table 3 Association between any inappropriate meta-regression and review characteristics

From: Most published meta-regression analyses based on aggregate data suffer from methodological pitfalls: a meta-epidemiological study

Any potential meta-regression pitfall Yes (n = 57) No (n = 24) Odds Ratio
(95% CI)
Published in 2012 36 (63%) 16 (67%) 0.87 (0.33 to 2.34)
Journal characteristics
Core clinical journals 12 (21%) 7 (29%) 0.64 (0.22 to 1.85)
General medical journals 11 (19%) 4 (17%) 1.13 (0.34 to 3.77)
Impact factor higher than median 29 (51%) 11 (46%) 1.22 (0.47 to 3.11)
Author characteristics
Affiliated with industry 5 (9%) 0 (0%) 5.13 (0.27 to 96.57)
Affiliated with biostatistics or epidemiology department 23 (40%) 12 (50%) 0.68 (0.27 to 1.75)
Ten or more of studies 53 (93%) 20 (83%) 2.61 (0.64 to 10.61)
Drug intervention 28 (49%) 10 (42%) 1.33 (0.52 to 3.44)
Binary outcome variable 25 (44%) 14 (58%) 0.57 (0.22 to 1.47)
  1. Odds ratios are for the comparison of meta-regression analyses with the characteristic as compared to meta-regression analyses without the characteristic. An odds ratio of 2.61 for ‘Ten or more studies’ indicates, for example, that the odds of any potential meta-regression pitfall is 2.61 times higher in meta-regression analyses that include 10 or more studies as compared with meta-regression analyses that include a lower number of studies