Cargando…

Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study

Objectives To examine the extent of multiplicity of data in trial reports and to assess the impact of multiplicity on meta-analysis results. Design Empirical study on a cohort of Cochrane systematic reviews. Data sources All Cochrane systematic reviews published from issue 3 in 2006 to issue 2 in 20...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tendal, Britta, Nüesch, Eveline, Higgins, Julian P T, Jüni, Peter, Gøtzsche, Peter C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21878462
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4829
_version_ 1782211707267973120
author Tendal, Britta
Nüesch, Eveline
Higgins, Julian P T
Jüni, Peter
Gøtzsche, Peter C
author_facet Tendal, Britta
Nüesch, Eveline
Higgins, Julian P T
Jüni, Peter
Gøtzsche, Peter C
author_sort Tendal, Britta
collection PubMed
description Objectives To examine the extent of multiplicity of data in trial reports and to assess the impact of multiplicity on meta-analysis results. Design Empirical study on a cohort of Cochrane systematic reviews. Data sources All Cochrane systematic reviews published from issue 3 in 2006 to issue 2 in 2007 that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD). We retrieved trial reports contributing to the first SMD result in each review, and downloaded review protocols. We used these SMDs to identify a specific outcome for each meta-analysis from its protocol. Review methods Reviews were eligible if SMD results were based on two to ten randomised trials and if protocols described the outcome. We excluded reviews if they only presented results of subgroup analyses. Based on review protocols and index outcomes, two observers independently extracted the data necessary to calculate SMDs from the original trial reports for any intervention group, time point, or outcome measure compatible with the protocol. From the extracted data, we used Monte Carlo simulations to calculate all possible SMDs for every meta-analysis. Results We identified 19 eligible meta-analyses (including 83 trials). Published review protocols often lacked information about which data to choose. Twenty-four (29%) trials reported data for multiple intervention groups, 30 (36%) reported data for multiple time points, and 29 (35%) reported the index outcome measured on multiple scales. In 18 meta-analyses, we found multiplicity of data in at least one trial report; the median difference between the smallest and largest SMD results within a meta-analysis was 0.40 standard deviation units (range 0.04 to 0.91). Conclusions Multiplicity of data can affect the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To reduce the risk of bias, reviews and meta-analyses should comply with prespecified protocols that clearly identify time points, intervention groups, and scales of interest.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3171064
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31710642011-09-19 Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study Tendal, Britta Nüesch, Eveline Higgins, Julian P T Jüni, Peter Gøtzsche, Peter C BMJ Research Objectives To examine the extent of multiplicity of data in trial reports and to assess the impact of multiplicity on meta-analysis results. Design Empirical study on a cohort of Cochrane systematic reviews. Data sources All Cochrane systematic reviews published from issue 3 in 2006 to issue 2 in 2007 that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD). We retrieved trial reports contributing to the first SMD result in each review, and downloaded review protocols. We used these SMDs to identify a specific outcome for each meta-analysis from its protocol. Review methods Reviews were eligible if SMD results were based on two to ten randomised trials and if protocols described the outcome. We excluded reviews if they only presented results of subgroup analyses. Based on review protocols and index outcomes, two observers independently extracted the data necessary to calculate SMDs from the original trial reports for any intervention group, time point, or outcome measure compatible with the protocol. From the extracted data, we used Monte Carlo simulations to calculate all possible SMDs for every meta-analysis. Results We identified 19 eligible meta-analyses (including 83 trials). Published review protocols often lacked information about which data to choose. Twenty-four (29%) trials reported data for multiple intervention groups, 30 (36%) reported data for multiple time points, and 29 (35%) reported the index outcome measured on multiple scales. In 18 meta-analyses, we found multiplicity of data in at least one trial report; the median difference between the smallest and largest SMD results within a meta-analysis was 0.40 standard deviation units (range 0.04 to 0.91). Conclusions Multiplicity of data can affect the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To reduce the risk of bias, reviews and meta-analyses should comply with prespecified protocols that clearly identify time points, intervention groups, and scales of interest. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2011-08-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3171064/ /pubmed/21878462 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4829 Text en © Tendal et al 2011 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
Nüesch, Eveline
Higgins, Julian P T
Jüni, Peter
Gøtzsche, Peter C
Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study
title Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study
title_full Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study
title_fullStr Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study
title_full_unstemmed Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study
title_short Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study
title_sort multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21878462
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4829
work_keys_str_mv AT tendalbritta multiplicityofdataintrialreportsandthereliabilityofmetaanalysesempiricalstudy
AT nuescheveline multiplicityofdataintrialreportsandthereliabilityofmetaanalysesempiricalstudy
AT higginsjulianpt multiplicityofdataintrialreportsandthereliabilityofmetaanalysesempiricalstudy
AT junipeter multiplicityofdataintrialreportsandthereliabilityofmetaanalysesempiricalstudy
AT gøtzschepeterc multiplicityofdataintrialreportsandthereliabilityofmetaanalysesempiricalstudy