Background: Dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) has been widely used in exploring cancer risk factors. Understanding the quality of published DRMAs on cancer risk factors may be beneficial for informed prevention for cancer.
Methods: We searched eligible DRMAs from 1st January 2011 to 31st-July-2017. The modified AMSTAR 1.0 (15 items) and PRISMA checklist (26 items) were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of included DRMAs. We compared the adherence rate of these items by journal type, publication years, region, and funding information, in prior.
Results: We included 260 DRMAs. Colorectal, breast, prostate, and lung were the four most commonly investigated cancers. For methodological quality, 6 out of 15 items were adhered by less than 30% of the DRMAs, 2 by less than 60%, only 7 of which by 80% or more. For reporting quality, 3 out of 26 items were adhered by less than 30% of the DRMAs, 1 by less than 80% (> 30%), and 20 of which by 80% or more. Those published in general journal, published more recently, and received any financial support have better methodological (Rate differences, RDs = 10-36%; P < 0.05) and reporting adherence (RDs = 12-36%; P < 0.05). DRMAs by Asian author tend to be less qualified than by European and American.
Conclusions: The methodological quality of DRMAs on cancer risk factors is worrisome that the findings of them may be deflective; more efforts are needed to improve the validity of it.
Keywords: Cancer prevention; Dose–response meta-analysis; Methodological quality; Reporting quality.