Field-wide meta-analyses of observational associations can map selective availability of risk factors and the impact of model specifications

ObjectivesInstead of evaluating one risk factor at a time, we illustrate the utility of “field-wide meta-analyses” in considering all available data on all putative risk factors of a disease simultaneously.Study Design and SettingWe identified studies on putative risk factors of pterygium (surfer's eye) in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. We mapped which factors were considered, reported, and adjusted for in each study. For each putative risk factor, four meta-analyses were done using univariate only, multivariate only, preferentially univariate, or preferentially multivariate estimates.ResultsA total of 2052 records were screened to identify 60 eligible studies reporting on 65 putative risk factors. Only 4 of 60 studies reported both multivariate and univariate regression analyses. None of the 32 studies using multivariate analysis adjusted for the same set of risk factors. Effect sizes from different types of regression analyses led to significantly different summary effect sizes (P-value < 0.001). Observed heterogeneity was very high for both multivariate (median I², 76.1%) and univariate (median I², 85.8%) estimates. No single study investigated all 11 risk factors that were statistically significant in at least one of our meta-analyses.ConclusionField-wide meta-analyses can map availability of risk factors and trends in modeling, adjustments and reporting, as well as the impact of differences in model specification.