Figshare data Heterogeneity.xlsx

<b>Background</b> Heterogeneity among the primary studies included in a systematic review is one of the most challenging considerations for systematic reviewers. Current practices in anesthesiology systematic reviews have not been evaluated, but traditional methods may not provide sufficient information to evaluate the true nature of these differences. We address these issues by examining the practices of systematic reviewers for evaluating heterogeneity in anesthesiology reviews. We also propose a mapping method for presenting heterogeneous aspects of the primary studies in systematic reviews. <b>Methods</b> We evaluated heterogeneity practices reported in systematic reviews published in highly ranked anesthesiology journals. Elements extracted from the SRs included heterogeneity tests, models used, analyses conducted, plots used to display heterogeneity, and significant p-values. We also extracted all I² values from the SRs to quantify the level of heterogeneity. Additionally, we selected a systematic review develop an evidence map in order to display clinical heterogeneity. <b>Results</b> Our statistical analysis showed 150/207 SRs reporting a test for statistical heterogeneity. Of the 150 SRs, 138 reported the use of a plot to display statistical heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were the most commonly reported analysis (54%). Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were used sparingly (25%; 23% respectively). A random effects model was most commonly reported (33%); however, most SRs did not report this information (38%). Heterogeneity statistics across meta-analyses suggested that, in our sample, the majority (55%) did not present sufficient heterogeneity to be of great concern. <b>Conclusions</b> Many reviews did not provide sufficient detail regarding heterogeneity. We are calling for improvement to reporting practices.

**背景**
系统综述（systematic review）纳入的原始研究之间存在的异质性（heterogeneity），是系统综述研究者面临的最具挑战性的考量因素之一。目前尚未有针对麻醉学（anesthesiology）系统综述实践的评估研究，但传统方法或许无法提供足够信息以阐明此类差异的本质。本研究通过调研麻醉学系统综述中研究者评估异质性的实践方式来解决上述问题，同时提出一种用于呈现系统综述中原始研究异质性特征的绘图方法。
**方法**
本研究对发表于高影响力麻醉学期刊的系统综述中所报道的异质性评估实践进行了调研。从纳入的系统综述中提取的要素包括异质性检验、所采用的模型、开展的分析、用于展示异质性的绘图方式，以及具有统计学意义的p值。本研究同时从这些系统综述中提取了全部I²值，以量化异质性水平。此外，本研究选取一篇系统综述以构建证据图（evidence map），用于展示临床异质性。
**结果**
本研究的统计分析显示，207篇系统综述中有150篇报道了统计学异质性检验。在这150篇系统综述中，有138篇报道了采用绘图方式展示统计学异质性。亚组分析（subgroup analysis）是最常被报道的分析方法（占比54%）。Meta回归（meta-regression）与敏感性分析（sensitivity analysis）的使用频次较低，占比分别为25%与23%。随机效应模型（random effects model）是最常被报道的模型（占比33%），但多数系统综述未报道此类信息（占比38%）。针对Meta分析（meta-analysis）的异质性统计结果显示，在本研究的样本中，多数（55%）系统综述的异质性程度未达到需要高度关注的水平。
**结论**
多数系统综述未提供足够的异质性相关细节信息，本研究呼吁提升相关报告实践的规范性。