In or out? Methodological considerations for including and excluding findings from a meta-analysis of predictors of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women

Corrine I. Voils, Julie Barroso, Victor Hasselblad, Margarete Sandelowski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Title. In or out? Methodological considerations for including and excluding findings from a meta-analysis of predictors of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women Aim. This paper is a discussion detailing the decisions concerning whether to include or exclude findings from a meta-analysis of report of quantitative studies of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women. Background. Publication constraints and the absence of reflexivity as a criterion for validity in, and reporting of, quantitative research preclude detailing the many judgements made in the course of a meta-analysis. Yet, such an accounting would assist researchers better to address the unique challenges to meta-analysis presented by the bodies of research they have targeted for review, and to show the subjectivity, albeit disciplined, that characterizes the meta-analytic process. Data sources. Data were 29 published and unpublished studies on antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women of any race/ethnicity, class, or nationality living in the United States of America. The studies were retrieved between June 2005 and January 2006 using 40 databases. Review methods. Findings were included if they met the statistical assumptions of meta-analysis, including: (1) normal distribution of observations; (2) homogeneity of variances; and (3) independence of observations. Results. Relevant studies and findings were excluded because of issues related to differences in study design, different operationalizations of dependent and independent variables, multiple cuts from common longitudinal data sets, and presentation of unadjusted and adjusted findings. These reasons led to the exclusion of 73% of unadjusted relationships and 87% of adjusted relationships from our data set, leaving few findings to synthesize. Conclusion. Decisions made during research synthesis studies may result in more information losses than gains, thereby obliging researchers to find ways to preserve findings that are potentially valuable for practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)163-177
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Advanced Nursing
Volume59
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
HIV
Research
Research Personnel
Information Storage and Retrieval
Normal Distribution
Ethnic Groups
Publications
Databases
Datasets

Keywords

  • Health care
  • HIV/AIDS
  • Meta-analysis
  • Quantitative approaches
  • Systematic review
  • Women's health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

In or out? Methodological considerations for including and excluding findings from a meta-analysis of predictors of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women. / Voils, Corrine I.; Barroso, Julie; Hasselblad, Victor; Sandelowski, Margarete.

In: Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 59, No. 2, 07.2007, p. 163-177.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Voils, Corrine I. ; Barroso, Julie ; Hasselblad, Victor ; Sandelowski, Margarete. / In or out? Methodological considerations for including and excluding findings from a meta-analysis of predictors of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women. In: Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2007 ; Vol. 59, No. 2. pp. 163-177.
@article{34c3c09fd8744014999c5ef5e225406f,
title = "In or out? Methodological considerations for including and excluding findings from a meta-analysis of predictors of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women",
abstract = "Title. In or out? Methodological considerations for including and excluding findings from a meta-analysis of predictors of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women Aim. This paper is a discussion detailing the decisions concerning whether to include or exclude findings from a meta-analysis of report of quantitative studies of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women. Background. Publication constraints and the absence of reflexivity as a criterion for validity in, and reporting of, quantitative research preclude detailing the many judgements made in the course of a meta-analysis. Yet, such an accounting would assist researchers better to address the unique challenges to meta-analysis presented by the bodies of research they have targeted for review, and to show the subjectivity, albeit disciplined, that characterizes the meta-analytic process. Data sources. Data were 29 published and unpublished studies on antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women of any race/ethnicity, class, or nationality living in the United States of America. The studies were retrieved between June 2005 and January 2006 using 40 databases. Review methods. Findings were included if they met the statistical assumptions of meta-analysis, including: (1) normal distribution of observations; (2) homogeneity of variances; and (3) independence of observations. Results. Relevant studies and findings were excluded because of issues related to differences in study design, different operationalizations of dependent and independent variables, multiple cuts from common longitudinal data sets, and presentation of unadjusted and adjusted findings. These reasons led to the exclusion of 73{\%} of unadjusted relationships and 87{\%} of adjusted relationships from our data set, leaving few findings to synthesize. Conclusion. Decisions made during research synthesis studies may result in more information losses than gains, thereby obliging researchers to find ways to preserve findings that are potentially valuable for practice.",
keywords = "Health care, HIV/AIDS, Meta-analysis, Quantitative approaches, Systematic review, Women's health",
author = "Voils, {Corrine I.} and Julie Barroso and Victor Hasselblad and Margarete Sandelowski",
year = "2007",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04289.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "59",
pages = "163--177",
journal = "Journal of Advanced Nursing",
issn = "0309-2402",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In or out? Methodological considerations for including and excluding findings from a meta-analysis of predictors of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women

AU - Voils, Corrine I.

AU - Barroso, Julie

AU - Hasselblad, Victor

AU - Sandelowski, Margarete

PY - 2007/7

Y1 - 2007/7

N2 - Title. In or out? Methodological considerations for including and excluding findings from a meta-analysis of predictors of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women Aim. This paper is a discussion detailing the decisions concerning whether to include or exclude findings from a meta-analysis of report of quantitative studies of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women. Background. Publication constraints and the absence of reflexivity as a criterion for validity in, and reporting of, quantitative research preclude detailing the many judgements made in the course of a meta-analysis. Yet, such an accounting would assist researchers better to address the unique challenges to meta-analysis presented by the bodies of research they have targeted for review, and to show the subjectivity, albeit disciplined, that characterizes the meta-analytic process. Data sources. Data were 29 published and unpublished studies on antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women of any race/ethnicity, class, or nationality living in the United States of America. The studies were retrieved between June 2005 and January 2006 using 40 databases. Review methods. Findings were included if they met the statistical assumptions of meta-analysis, including: (1) normal distribution of observations; (2) homogeneity of variances; and (3) independence of observations. Results. Relevant studies and findings were excluded because of issues related to differences in study design, different operationalizations of dependent and independent variables, multiple cuts from common longitudinal data sets, and presentation of unadjusted and adjusted findings. These reasons led to the exclusion of 73% of unadjusted relationships and 87% of adjusted relationships from our data set, leaving few findings to synthesize. Conclusion. Decisions made during research synthesis studies may result in more information losses than gains, thereby obliging researchers to find ways to preserve findings that are potentially valuable for practice.

AB - Title. In or out? Methodological considerations for including and excluding findings from a meta-analysis of predictors of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women Aim. This paper is a discussion detailing the decisions concerning whether to include or exclude findings from a meta-analysis of report of quantitative studies of antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women. Background. Publication constraints and the absence of reflexivity as a criterion for validity in, and reporting of, quantitative research preclude detailing the many judgements made in the course of a meta-analysis. Yet, such an accounting would assist researchers better to address the unique challenges to meta-analysis presented by the bodies of research they have targeted for review, and to show the subjectivity, albeit disciplined, that characterizes the meta-analytic process. Data sources. Data were 29 published and unpublished studies on antiretroviral adherence in HIV-positive women of any race/ethnicity, class, or nationality living in the United States of America. The studies were retrieved between June 2005 and January 2006 using 40 databases. Review methods. Findings were included if they met the statistical assumptions of meta-analysis, including: (1) normal distribution of observations; (2) homogeneity of variances; and (3) independence of observations. Results. Relevant studies and findings were excluded because of issues related to differences in study design, different operationalizations of dependent and independent variables, multiple cuts from common longitudinal data sets, and presentation of unadjusted and adjusted findings. These reasons led to the exclusion of 73% of unadjusted relationships and 87% of adjusted relationships from our data set, leaving few findings to synthesize. Conclusion. Decisions made during research synthesis studies may result in more information losses than gains, thereby obliging researchers to find ways to preserve findings that are potentially valuable for practice.

KW - Health care

KW - HIV/AIDS

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Quantitative approaches

KW - Systematic review

KW - Women's health

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34250737325&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34250737325&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04289.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04289.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 17543011

AN - SCOPUS:34250737325

VL - 59

SP - 163

EP - 177

JO - Journal of Advanced Nursing

JF - Journal of Advanced Nursing

SN - 0309-2402

IS - 2

ER -