Redundant meta-analyses are common in genetic epidemiology

ObjectivesThe massive growth in the publication of meta-analyses may cause redundancy and wasted efforts. We performed a metaepidemiologic study to evaluate the extent of potential redundancy in published meta-analyses in genetic epidemiology.Study design and settingUsing a sample of 38 index meta-analyses of genetic associations published in 2010, we retrieved additional meta-analyses that evaluated identical associations (same genetic variant and phenotype) using the Human Genome Epidemiology (HuGE) Navigator and PubMed databases. We analyzed the frequency of potential duplication and examined whether subsequent meta-analyses cited previous meta-analyses on the exact same association.ResultsBased on 38 index meta-analyses, we retrieved a total of 99 duplicate meta-analyses. Only 12 (32%) of the index meta-analyses were unambiguously unique. We found a mean of 2.6 duplicates and a median of 2 duplicates per meta-analysis. In case studies, only 29-54% of previously published meta-analyses were cited by subsequent ones.ConclusionThese results suggest that duplication is common in meta-analyses of genetic associations.