Why the study?
There is a paucity of best practice guidance on meta-reviews in physical activity health-related research.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Population
1130 articles qualifying for the PAGAC Scientific Report
Design
Meta-review methodology and best practice guidance
Provides best-practice guidance for meta-reviews in physical activity; extends methodological standards for future evidence syntheses.
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) have proliferated with a concomitant increase in reviews of SRs/MAs or "meta-reviews" (MRs). As uncovered by the 2018 US Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee (PAGAC), there is a paucity of best practice guidance on MRs on physical activity health-related research. This manuscript aims to fill this gap. METHODS: In total, the PAGAC conducted 38 literature searches across 3 electronic databases and triaged 20,838 titles, 4913 abstracts, and 2139 full texts from which 1130 articles qualified for the PAGAC Scientific Report. RESULTS: During the MR process, the following challenges were encountered: (1) if the SR/MA authors had limited experience in synthesis methodology, they likely did not account for risk of bias in the conclusions they reached; (2) many SRs/MAs reviewed the same primary-level studies; (3) many SRs/MAs failed to disclose effect modifier analyses; (4) source populations varied; (5) physical activity exposures were nonstandardized; and (6) dose-response effects or effect modification of the physical activity exposure could not be identified. CONCLUSIONS: Using examples from the PAGAC Scientific Report, we provide (1) a high-level introduction to MRs; (2) recommended steps in conducting a MR; (3) challenges that can be encountered; and (4) guidance in addressing these challenges.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pescatello et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: