ABSTRACT
Methodological quality of meta-analyses on hypertension treatments can affect treatment decision-making. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study to investigate the methodological quality of meta-analyses on hypertension treatments. One hundred and fifty-eight meta-analyses were identified. Overall, methodological quality was unsatisfactory in the following aspects: comprehensive reporting of financial support (1.9%), provision of included and excluded lists of studies (22.8%), inclusion of grey literature (27.2%), and inclusion of protocols (32.9%). The 126 non-Cochrane meta-analyses had poor performance on almost all the methodological items. Non-Cochrane meta-analyses focused on nonpharmacologic treatments were more likely to consider scientific quality of included studies when making conclusions. The 32 Cochrane meta-analyses generally had good methodological quality except for comprehensive reporting of the sources of support. These results highlight the need for cautious interpretation of these meta-analyses, especially among physicians and policy makers when guidelines are formulated. Future meta-analyses should pay attention to improving these methodological aspects.
