Meta-analysis (MA) quantitatively summarizes the findings of independent studies and is considered the highest quality of evidence for evidence-based medicine. However, issues in reporting and methodological rigor of MA hamper reproducibility and create the potential for bias. By applying PRISMA reporting guideline and AMSTAR2 execution guidelines on 40 cervical cancer MA samples covering topics such as interventions and risk factors, we determined the extent to which MA execution adhered to best practice guidelines. The results show that the elements with least adherence include "review methods established before MA" and "principal summary measures defined" (each 32.5% per PRISMA) and "characteristics of included studies" (31.3% per AMSTAR2) which undermine reproducibility and increase the risk of bias. This initial work presents common pitfalls in MA and is intended to improve awareness of these issues for clinicians who are interested in conducting MA and to pave the way toward quality improvement via informatics approaches.
Keywords: Cervical Cancer; Meta-Analysis; Reproducibility of Results.