Cargando…

Double Sampling with Multiple Imputation to Answer Large Sample Meta-Research Questions: Introduction and Illustration by Evaluating Adherence to Two Simple CONSORT Guidelines

Background: Meta-research can involve manual retrieval and evaluation of research, which is resource intensive. Creation of high throughput methods (e.g., search heuristics, crowdsourcing) has improved feasibility of large meta-research questions, but possibly at the cost of accuracy. Objective: To...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Capers, Patrice L., Brown, Andrew W., Dawson, John A., Allison, David B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4428480/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25988135
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2015.00006
_version_ 1782370899667714048
author Capers, Patrice L.
Brown, Andrew W.
Dawson, John A.
Allison, David B.
author_facet Capers, Patrice L.
Brown, Andrew W.
Dawson, John A.
Allison, David B.
author_sort Capers, Patrice L.
collection PubMed
description Background: Meta-research can involve manual retrieval and evaluation of research, which is resource intensive. Creation of high throughput methods (e.g., search heuristics, crowdsourcing) has improved feasibility of large meta-research questions, but possibly at the cost of accuracy. Objective: To evaluate the use of double sampling combined with multiple imputation (DS + MI) to address meta-research questions, using as an example adherence of PubMed entries to two simple consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines for titles and abstracts. Methods: For the DS large sample, we retrieved all PubMed entries satisfying the filters: RCT, human, abstract available, and English language (n = 322, 107). For the DS subsample, we randomly sampled 500 entries from the large sample. The large sample was evaluated with a lower rigor, higher throughput (R(LO)T(HI)) method using search heuristics, while the subsample was evaluated using a higher rigor, lower throughput (R(HI)T(LO)) human rating method. Multiple imputation of the missing-completely at-random R(HI)T(LO) data for the large sample was informed by: R(HI)T(LO) data from the subsample; R(LO)T(HI) data from the large sample; whether a study was an RCT; and country and year of publication. Results: The R(HI)T(LO) and R(LO)T(HI) methods in the subsample largely agreed (phi coefficients: title = 1.00, abstract = 0.92). Compliance with abstract and title criteria has increased over time, with non-US countries improving more rapidly. DS + MI logistic regression estimates were more precise than subsample estimates (e.g., 95% CI for change in title and abstract compliance by year: subsample R(HI)T(LO) 1.050–1.174 vs. DS + MI 1.082–1.151). As evidence of improved accuracy, DS + MI coefficient estimates were closer to R(HI)T(LO) than the large sample R(LO)T(HI). Conclusion: Our results support our hypothesis that DS + MI would result in improved precision and accuracy. This method is flexible and may provide a practical way to examine large corpora of literature.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4428480
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44284802015-05-18 Double Sampling with Multiple Imputation to Answer Large Sample Meta-Research Questions: Introduction and Illustration by Evaluating Adherence to Two Simple CONSORT Guidelines Capers, Patrice L. Brown, Andrew W. Dawson, John A. Allison, David B. Front Nutr Nutrition Background: Meta-research can involve manual retrieval and evaluation of research, which is resource intensive. Creation of high throughput methods (e.g., search heuristics, crowdsourcing) has improved feasibility of large meta-research questions, but possibly at the cost of accuracy. Objective: To evaluate the use of double sampling combined with multiple imputation (DS + MI) to address meta-research questions, using as an example adherence of PubMed entries to two simple consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines for titles and abstracts. Methods: For the DS large sample, we retrieved all PubMed entries satisfying the filters: RCT, human, abstract available, and English language (n = 322, 107). For the DS subsample, we randomly sampled 500 entries from the large sample. The large sample was evaluated with a lower rigor, higher throughput (R(LO)T(HI)) method using search heuristics, while the subsample was evaluated using a higher rigor, lower throughput (R(HI)T(LO)) human rating method. Multiple imputation of the missing-completely at-random R(HI)T(LO) data for the large sample was informed by: R(HI)T(LO) data from the subsample; R(LO)T(HI) data from the large sample; whether a study was an RCT; and country and year of publication. Results: The R(HI)T(LO) and R(LO)T(HI) methods in the subsample largely agreed (phi coefficients: title = 1.00, abstract = 0.92). Compliance with abstract and title criteria has increased over time, with non-US countries improving more rapidly. DS + MI logistic regression estimates were more precise than subsample estimates (e.g., 95% CI for change in title and abstract compliance by year: subsample R(HI)T(LO) 1.050–1.174 vs. DS + MI 1.082–1.151). As evidence of improved accuracy, DS + MI coefficient estimates were closer to R(HI)T(LO) than the large sample R(LO)T(HI). Conclusion: Our results support our hypothesis that DS + MI would result in improved precision and accuracy. This method is flexible and may provide a practical way to examine large corpora of literature. Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4428480/ /pubmed/25988135 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2015.00006 Text en Copyright © 2015 Capers, Brown, Dawson and Allison. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Nutrition
Capers, Patrice L.
Brown, Andrew W.
Dawson, John A.
Allison, David B.
Double Sampling with Multiple Imputation to Answer Large Sample Meta-Research Questions: Introduction and Illustration by Evaluating Adherence to Two Simple CONSORT Guidelines
title Double Sampling with Multiple Imputation to Answer Large Sample Meta-Research Questions: Introduction and Illustration by Evaluating Adherence to Two Simple CONSORT Guidelines
title_full Double Sampling with Multiple Imputation to Answer Large Sample Meta-Research Questions: Introduction and Illustration by Evaluating Adherence to Two Simple CONSORT Guidelines
title_fullStr Double Sampling with Multiple Imputation to Answer Large Sample Meta-Research Questions: Introduction and Illustration by Evaluating Adherence to Two Simple CONSORT Guidelines
title_full_unstemmed Double Sampling with Multiple Imputation to Answer Large Sample Meta-Research Questions: Introduction and Illustration by Evaluating Adherence to Two Simple CONSORT Guidelines
title_short Double Sampling with Multiple Imputation to Answer Large Sample Meta-Research Questions: Introduction and Illustration by Evaluating Adherence to Two Simple CONSORT Guidelines
title_sort double sampling with multiple imputation to answer large sample meta-research questions: introduction and illustration by evaluating adherence to two simple consort guidelines
topic Nutrition
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4428480/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25988135
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2015.00006
work_keys_str_mv AT caperspatricel doublesamplingwithmultipleimputationtoanswerlargesamplemetaresearchquestionsintroductionandillustrationbyevaluatingadherencetotwosimpleconsortguidelines
AT brownandreww doublesamplingwithmultipleimputationtoanswerlargesamplemetaresearchquestionsintroductionandillustrationbyevaluatingadherencetotwosimpleconsortguidelines
AT dawsonjohna doublesamplingwithmultipleimputationtoanswerlargesamplemetaresearchquestionsintroductionandillustrationbyevaluatingadherencetotwosimpleconsortguidelines
AT allisondavidb doublesamplingwithmultipleimputationtoanswerlargesamplemetaresearchquestionsintroductionandillustrationbyevaluatingadherencetotwosimpleconsortguidelines