Cargando…

Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study

Objective To study the inter-observer variation related to extraction of continuous and numerical rating scale data from trial reports for use in meta-analyses. Design Observer agreement study. Data sources A random sample of 10 Cochrane reviews that presented a result as a standardised mean differe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tendal, Britta, Higgins, Julian P T, Jüni, Peter, Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Trelle, Sven, Nüesch, Eveline, Wandel, Simon, Jørgensen, Anders W, Gesser, Katarina, Ilsøe-Kristensen, Søren, Gøtzsche, Peter C
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726927/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19679616
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3128
_version_ 1782170639713435648
author Tendal, Britta
Higgins, Julian P T
Jüni, Peter
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn
Trelle, Sven
Nüesch, Eveline
Wandel, Simon
Jørgensen, Anders W
Gesser, Katarina
Ilsøe-Kristensen, Søren
Gøtzsche, Peter C
author_facet Tendal, Britta
Higgins, Julian P T
Jüni, Peter
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn
Trelle, Sven
Nüesch, Eveline
Wandel, Simon
Jørgensen, Anders W
Gesser, Katarina
Ilsøe-Kristensen, Søren
Gøtzsche, Peter C
author_sort Tendal, Britta
collection PubMed
description Objective To study the inter-observer variation related to extraction of continuous and numerical rating scale data from trial reports for use in meta-analyses. Design Observer agreement study. Data sources A random sample of 10 Cochrane reviews that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD), the protocols for the reviews and the trial reports (n=45) were retrieved. Data extraction Five experienced methodologists and five PhD students independently extracted data from the trial reports for calculation of the first SMD result in each review. The observers did not have access to the reviews but to the protocols, where the relevant outcome was highlighted. The agreement was analysed at both trial and meta-analysis level, pairing the observers in all possible ways (45 pairs, yielding 2025 pairs of trials and 450 pairs of meta-analyses). Agreement was defined as SMDs that differed less than 0.1 in their point estimates or confidence intervals. Results The agreement was 53% at trial level and 31% at meta-analysis level. Including all pairs, the median disagreement was SMD=0.22 (interquartile range 0.07-0.61). The experts agreed somewhat more than the PhD students at trial level (61% v 46%), but not at meta-analysis level. Important reasons for disagreement were differences in selection of time points, scales, control groups, and type of calculations; whether to include a trial in the meta-analysis; and data extraction errors made by the observers. In 14 out of the 100 SMDs calculated at the meta-analysis level, individual observers reached different conclusions than the originally published review. Conclusions Disagreements were common and often larger than the effect of commonly used treatments. Meta-analyses using SMDs are prone to observer variation and should be interpreted with caution. The reliability of meta-analyses might be improved by having more detailed review protocols, more than one observer, and statistical expertise.
format Text
id pubmed-2726927
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27269272009-08-14 Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study Tendal, Britta Higgins, Julian P T Jüni, Peter Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn Trelle, Sven Nüesch, Eveline Wandel, Simon Jørgensen, Anders W Gesser, Katarina Ilsøe-Kristensen, Søren Gøtzsche, Peter C BMJ Research Objective To study the inter-observer variation related to extraction of continuous and numerical rating scale data from trial reports for use in meta-analyses. Design Observer agreement study. Data sources A random sample of 10 Cochrane reviews that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD), the protocols for the reviews and the trial reports (n=45) were retrieved. Data extraction Five experienced methodologists and five PhD students independently extracted data from the trial reports for calculation of the first SMD result in each review. The observers did not have access to the reviews but to the protocols, where the relevant outcome was highlighted. The agreement was analysed at both trial and meta-analysis level, pairing the observers in all possible ways (45 pairs, yielding 2025 pairs of trials and 450 pairs of meta-analyses). Agreement was defined as SMDs that differed less than 0.1 in their point estimates or confidence intervals. Results The agreement was 53% at trial level and 31% at meta-analysis level. Including all pairs, the median disagreement was SMD=0.22 (interquartile range 0.07-0.61). The experts agreed somewhat more than the PhD students at trial level (61% v 46%), but not at meta-analysis level. Important reasons for disagreement were differences in selection of time points, scales, control groups, and type of calculations; whether to include a trial in the meta-analysis; and data extraction errors made by the observers. In 14 out of the 100 SMDs calculated at the meta-analysis level, individual observers reached different conclusions than the originally published review. Conclusions Disagreements were common and often larger than the effect of commonly used treatments. Meta-analyses using SMDs are prone to observer variation and should be interpreted with caution. The reliability of meta-analyses might be improved by having more detailed review protocols, more than one observer, and statistical expertise. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2009-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC2726927/ /pubmed/19679616 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3128 Text en This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Research
Tendal, Britta
Higgins, Julian P T
Jüni, Peter
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn
Trelle, Sven
Nüesch, Eveline
Wandel, Simon
Jørgensen, Anders W
Gesser, Katarina
Ilsøe-Kristensen, Søren
Gøtzsche, Peter C
Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study
title Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study
title_full Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study
title_fullStr Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study
title_full_unstemmed Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study
title_short Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study
title_sort disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726927/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19679616
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3128
work_keys_str_mv AT tendalbritta disagreementsinmetaanalysesusingoutcomesmeasuredoncontinuousorratingscalesobserveragreementstudy
AT higginsjulianpt disagreementsinmetaanalysesusingoutcomesmeasuredoncontinuousorratingscalesobserveragreementstudy
AT junipeter disagreementsinmetaanalysesusingoutcomesmeasuredoncontinuousorratingscalesobserveragreementstudy
AT hrobjartssonasbjørn disagreementsinmetaanalysesusingoutcomesmeasuredoncontinuousorratingscalesobserveragreementstudy
AT trellesven disagreementsinmetaanalysesusingoutcomesmeasuredoncontinuousorratingscalesobserveragreementstudy
AT nuescheveline disagreementsinmetaanalysesusingoutcomesmeasuredoncontinuousorratingscalesobserveragreementstudy
AT wandelsimon disagreementsinmetaanalysesusingoutcomesmeasuredoncontinuousorratingscalesobserveragreementstudy
AT jørgensenandersw disagreementsinmetaanalysesusingoutcomesmeasuredoncontinuousorratingscalesobserveragreementstudy
AT gesserkatarina disagreementsinmetaanalysesusingoutcomesmeasuredoncontinuousorratingscalesobserveragreementstudy
AT ilsøekristensensøren disagreementsinmetaanalysesusingoutcomesmeasuredoncontinuousorratingscalesobserveragreementstudy
AT gøtzschepeterc disagreementsinmetaanalysesusingoutcomesmeasuredoncontinuousorratingscalesobserveragreementstudy