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.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WJY5D

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Not Applicable

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Not applicable

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Not Applicable

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Not Applicable

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Not Applicable

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.