A Meta-Analysis of Psychosocial Interventions for Cancer Patients Gone Awry
Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, . Annals of Behavioral Medicine
(Impact Factor: 4.2).
03/2009; 37(1):94-6; author reply 97-100. DOI: 10.1007/s12160-008-9075-2
Available from: James C Coyne
- "It also suggests that early warnings about the perils of conducting meta-analysis as if it were a straightforward , even mechanical procedure with a minimal amount of subjectivity or arbitrary judgment by authors (Wanous, Sullivan, & Malinak, 1989) may not have been heeded. Coyne, Thombs, and Hagedoorn (2008) recently provided a extensive critique of a meta-analysis of interventions for distress among breast cancer patients (Zimmermann, Heinrichs, & Baucom , 2007). The first research question addressed by Zimmermann et al. (2007) was whether patients with breast cancer had better outcomes when they received interventions as part of a study that only included those with breast cancer as compared with studies that included patients with mixed diagnoses. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We examined four meta-analyses of behavioral interventions for adults (Dixon, Keefe, Scipio, Perri, & Abernethy, 2007; Hoffman, Papas, Chatkoff, & Kerns, 2007; Irwin, Cole, & Nicassio, 2006; and Jacobsen, Donovan, Vadaparampil, & Small, 2007) that have appeared in the Evidence Based Treatment Reviews section of Health Psychology.
We applied the following criteria to each meta-analysis: (1) whether each meta-analysis was described accurately, adequately, and transparently in the article; (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.
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.
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.
Health Psychology 03/2010; 29(2):107-16. DOI:10.1037/a0017633 · 3.59 Impact Factor
Annals of Behavioral Medicine 03/2009; 37(1). DOI:10.1007/s12160-008-9076-1 · 4.20 Impact Factor
Psychology & Health 07/2010; 25(6):647-50. DOI:10.1080/08870446.2010.498227 · 1.95 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.