Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2005 Oct 5;9(5):R575-82.
doi: 10.1186/cc3803. Epub 2005 Sep 9.

A Systematic Evaluation of the Quality of Meta-Analyses in the Critical Care Literature

Free PMC article

A Systematic Evaluation of the Quality of Meta-Analyses in the Critical Care Literature

Anthony Delaney et al. Crit Care. .
Free PMC article


Introduction: Meta-analyses have been suggested to be the highest form of evidence available to clinicians to guide clinical practice in critical care. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of meta-analyses that address topics pertinent to critical care.

Methods: To identify potentially eligible meta-analyses for inclusion, a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was undertaken, using broad search terms relevant to intensive care, including: intensive care, critical care, shock, resuscitation, inotropes and mechanical ventilation. Predetermined inclusion criteria were applied to each identified meta-analysis independently by two authors. To assess report quality, the included meta-analyses were assessed using the component and overall scores from the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ). The quality of reports published before and after the publication of the QUOROM statement was compared.

Results: A total of 139 reports of meta-analyses were included (kappa = 0.93). The overall quality of reports of meta-analyses was found to be poor, with an estimated mean overall OQAQ score of 3.3 (95% CI; 3.0-3.6). Only 43 (30.9%) were scored as having minimal or minor flaws (>5). We noted problems with the reporting of key characteristics of meta-analyses, such as performing a thorough literature search, avoidance of bias in the inclusion of studies and appropriately referring to the validity of the included studies. After the release of the QUOROM statement, however, an improvement in the overall quality of published meta-analyses was noted.

Conclusion: The overall quality of the reports of meta-analyses available to critical care physicians is poor. Physicians should critically evaluate these studies prior to considering applying the results of these studies in their clinical practice.


Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart showing results of search and reasons for exclusion of reports. ICU, intensive care unit.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Frequency histogram showing the number of reports of meta-analyses addressing critical care issues per year, 1994 to 2003.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 37 articles

See all "Cited by" articles


    1. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485–488. - PubMed
    1. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992;268:240–248. doi: 10.1001/jama.268.2.240. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cook DJ, Meade MO, Fink MP. How to keep up with the critical care literature and avoid being buried alive. Crit Care Med. 1996;24:1757–1768. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199610000-00026. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ, Cook DJ, Green L, Naylor CD, Wilson MC, Richardson WS. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the Users' Guides to patient care. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000;284:1290–1296. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.10.1290. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McIntyre LA, Fergusson DA, Hebert PC, Moher D, Hutchison JS. Prolonged therapeutic hypothermia after traumatic brain injury in adults: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289:2992–2999. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.22.2992. - DOI - PubMed