Methodological quality of meta-analyses of single-case experimental studies

Methodological rigor is a fundamental factor in the validity and credibility of the results of a meta-analysis.

Following an increasing interest in single-case experimental design (SCED) meta-analyses, the current study investigates the methodological quality of SCED meta-analyses.

We assessed the methodological quality of 178 SCED meta-analyses published between 1985 and 2015 through the modified Revised-Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) checklist.

The main finding of the current review is that the methodological quality of the SCED meta-analyses has increased over time, but is still low according to the R-AMSTAR checklist. A remarkable percentage of the studies (93.80% of the included SCED meta-analyses) did not even reach the midpoint score (22, on a scale of 0-44). The mean and median methodological quality scores were 15.57 and 16, respectively. Relatively high scores were observed for "providing the characteristics of the included studies" and "doing comprehensive literature search". The key areas of deficiency were "reporting an assessment of the likelihood of publication bias" and "using the methods appropriately to combine the findings of studies".

Although the results of the current review reveal that the methodological quality of the SCED meta-analyses has increased over time, still more efforts are needed to improve their methodological quality.