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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |