@misc{10481/93901,
year = {2024},
month = {8},
url = {https://hdl.handle.net/10481/93901},
abstract = {Introduction: Concerns about the risk of bias (RoB) of Meta-analysis (MAs) have
grown in parallel with the exponential increase in the number of publications in science.
However, this has not been properly assessed in Education. The aims were to
evaluate the RoB of MAs in Education and to identify potential predictors of a
lower RoB.
Methods: Systematic review. Selection criteria were all MAs of experimental design
evaluating the effectiveness of educational interventions on any academic outcome
published from 1 January 2009 (year of publication of the first PRISMA guideline) published
in English or Spanish, with the exclusion of those with other designs, evaluating
other outcomes or not accessible to full text. A systematic search was performed in
four databases (ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed) until March 2022. A preregistered
protocol was used to extract data on study characteristics, PRISMA compliance,
and RoB, based on the AMSTAR 2 instrument, and dichotomized as low vs. high
RoB. The study selection and data extraction process were independently conducted
by two researchers and disagreements were solved by consensus or by a third
researcher. Statistical analysis: A flow-diagram and descriptive tables were tabulated.
As a measure of association, odds ratios (OR) and its 95% confidence intervals were
calculated by logistic regression analysis with dichotomized RoB as the dependent
variable.
Results: A total of 69 meta-analyses of studies were identified. Almost 90% (n¼62) of
them were rated with a critically low overall confidence level, and almost 70%
(n¼49) had a high RoB. Factors related to a low RoB were adherence to PRISMA
guideline (OR ¼ 5.5; 95%CI: 1.8–16.6), the most recent studies (OR ¼ 7.4; 95%CI: 1.5–
35.3), a higher number of authors (OR ¼ 1.4; 95%CI: 1.1–1.9), a corresponding author
from a European country (OR ¼ 3.7; 95%CI: 1.1–12.8), and publishing in the health
educational area (OR ¼ 13.4; 95%CI: 3.6–49.6).
Conclusions: Our study raises concerns regarding the methodological quality of published
MA in Education. The use of instruments, such as AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA 2020,
may improve the quality of future MA in Education.},
organization = {project: Transformation of learning in hybrid contexts for the educational and labor inclusion of especially
vulnerable sectors with emphasis on UFM. TYNDALL/UFM. Reference: PID2020-119194RB-I00, financed by MCIN/AEI/
10.13039/501100011033},
publisher = {Taylor & Francis group},
keywords = {Systematic review},
keywords = {metaanalysis},
keywords = {AMSTAR-2},
title = {A systematic review to evaluate the risk of bias of meta-analyses reporting experimental educational interventions focused on academic performance},
doi = {10.1080/2331186X.2024.2385785},
author = {Sánchez-Martín, Micaela and Gutiérrez-Sánchez, Marta and Olmedo Moreno, Eva María and Navarro Mateu, Fernando},
}