Methodological systematic review recommends improvements to conduct and reporting when meta-analyzing interrupted time series studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Interrupted Time Series (ITS) are a type of nonrandomized design commonly used to evaluate public health policy interventions, and the impact of exposures, at the population level. Meta-analysis may be used to combine results from ITS across studies (in the context of systematic reviews) or across sites within the same study. We aimed to examine the statistical approaches, methods, and completeness of reporting in reviews that meta-analyze results from ITS. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Eight electronic databases were searched to identify reviews (published 2000-2019) that meta-analyzed at least two ITS. Characteristics of the included reviews, the statistical methods used to analyze the ITS and meta-analyze their results, effect measures, and risk of bias assessment tools were extracted. RESULTS: Of the 4213 identified records, 54 reviews were included. Nearly all reviews (94%) used two-stage meta-analysis, most commonly fitting a random effects model (69%). Among the 41 reviews that re-analyzed the ITS, linear regression (39%) and ARIMA (20%) were most commonly used; 38% adjusted for autocorrelation. The most common effect measure meta-analyzed was an immediate level-change (46/54). Reporting of the statistical methods and ITS characteristics was often incomplete. CONCLUSION: Improvement is needed in the conduct and reporting of reviews that meta-analyze results from ITS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.748 | 0.883 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".