Ain’t necessarily so: Review and critique of recent meta-analyses of behavioral medicine interventions in health psychology.

OBJECTIVE: We examined four meta-analyses of behavioral interventions for adults (Dixon, Keefe, Scipio, Perri, Hoffman, Papas, Chatkoff, Irwin, Cole, and Jacobsen, Donovan, Vadaparampil, (2) whether there was an adequate attempt to deal with methodological quality of the original trials; (3) the extent to which the meta-analysis depended on small, underpowered studies; and (4) the extent to which the meta-analysis provided valid and useful evidence-based recommendations. RESULTS: Across the four meta-analyses, we identified substantial problems with the transparency and completeness with which these meta-analyses were reported, as well as a dependence on small, underpowered trials of generally poor quality. CONCLUSION: Results of our exercise raise questions about the clinical validity and utility of the conclusions of these meta-analyses. Results should serve as a wake up call to prospective authors, reviewers, and end-users of meta-analyses now appearing in the literature.