IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0313720.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meta-analytical approaches to ordinal outcome data in clinical interventional studies: A scoping review with reproducible research

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Mulhem

Abstract

Background: Conducting meta-analyses on ordinal outcome data is more complex than on binary or continuous data. This study aims to summarise the current biomedical literature on meta-analytical methods for ordinal outcomes and attempts to reproduce the results of previous studies. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in three databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, from inception to 05/05/2024. Forward and backward citation searches were also performed. The screening was conducted in two phases using Covidence software. Studies were included if they reported or compared methods for meta-analysis of ordinal outcomes in clinical interventional studies. Relevant studies were summarised and discussed. If sufficient data for methods comparison were available, either in the retrieved reports or after contacting the authors, an attempt at reproducible research was made. Results: 333 records were screened, yielding four methodological studies that met the inclusion criteria. These studies addressed meta-analytical methods for ordinal scales ranging from 5 to 20 ordered categories. The three primary approaches identified were (1) ordinal models (proportional odds and generalised odds), (2) binary models (dichotomisation of ordinal scales), and (3) continuous models (treating ordinal scales as continuous variables). None of the included studies provided a comprehensive comparison of all three approaches. Two studies compared different proportional odds models; one compared binary with proportional odds, but the full results were not published, and one compared continuous and generalised odds models using simulated data with one scenario. The latter study allowed for reproducibility, but our analysis produced different results, and attempts to clarify the discrepancy with the authors were unsuccessful. Conclusions: A significant knowledge gap exists regarding the optimal meta-analytical method for ordinal outcomes in clinical interventional studies. Further methodological research is required to establish a robust evidence base for choosing the most appropriate approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Mulhem, 2025. "Meta-analytical approaches to ordinal outcome data in clinical interventional studies: A scoping review with reproducible research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(4), pages 1-11, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0313720
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313720
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313720
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313720&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0313720?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0313720. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.