Methodological quality is underrated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in health psychology.

OBJECTIVES: In this paper, we compile and describe the main approaches proposed in the literature to include methodological quality (MQ) or risk of bias (RoB) into research synthesis. We also meta-review how the RoB of observational primary studies is being assessed and to what extent the results are incorporated in the conclusions of research synthesis.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews or meta-analyses related to health and clinical psychology. A random sample of 90 reviews published between January 2010 and May 2016 was examined.

RESULTS: A total of 46 reviews (51%) performed a formal assessment of the RoB of primary studies. Only 17 reviews (19%) linked the outcomes of quality assessment with the results of the review.

CONCLUSION: According to the previous literature, our results corroborate the lack of guidance to incorporate the RoB assessment in the results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our recommendation is to appraise MQ according to domains of RoB to rate the degree of credibility of the results of a research synthesis, as well as subgroup analysis or meta-regression as analytical methods to incorporate the quality assessment.