Cargando…

Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether systematic reviewers selectively include trial effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple are available, and what impact this may have on meta-analytic effects. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. DATA SOURCES: We randomly selected systematic reviews of interventions fr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Page, Matthew J, Forbes, Andrew, Chau, Marisa, Green, Sally E, McKenzie, Joanne E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4853995/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27121706
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011863
_version_ 1782430160288481280
author Page, Matthew J
Forbes, Andrew
Chau, Marisa
Green, Sally E
McKenzie, Joanne E
author_facet Page, Matthew J
Forbes, Andrew
Chau, Marisa
Green, Sally E
McKenzie, Joanne E
author_sort Page, Matthew J
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To explore whether systematic reviewers selectively include trial effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple are available, and what impact this may have on meta-analytic effects. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. DATA SOURCES: We randomly selected systematic reviews of interventions from 2 clinical specialties published between January 2010 and 2012. The first presented meta-analysis of a continuous outcome in each review was selected (index meta-analysis), and all trial effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis (eg, from multiple scales or time points) were extracted from trial reports. ANALYSIS: We calculated a statistic (the Potential Bias Index (PBI)) to quantify and test for evidence of selective inclusion. The PBI ranges from 0 to 1; values above or below 0.5 are suggestive of selective inclusion of effect estimates more or less favourable to the intervention, respectively. The impact of any potential selective inclusion was investigated by comparing the index meta-analytic standardised mean difference (SMD) to the median of a randomly constructed distribution of meta-analytic SMDs (representing the meta-analytic SMD expected when there is no selective inclusion). RESULTS: 31 reviews (250 trials) were included. The estimated PBI was 0.57 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.63), suggesting that trial effect estimates that were more favourable to the intervention were included in meta-analyses slightly more often than expected under a process consistent with random selection; however, the 95% CI included the null hypothesis of no selective inclusion. Any potential selective inclusion did not have an important impact on the meta-analytic effects. CONCLUSION: There was no clear evidence that selective inclusion of trial effect estimates occurred in this sample of meta-analyses. Further research on selective inclusion in other clinical specialties is needed. To enable readers to assess the risk of selective inclusion bias, we recommend that systematic reviewers report the methods used to select effect estimates to include in meta-analyses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4853995
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48539952016-05-06 Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study Page, Matthew J Forbes, Andrew Chau, Marisa Green, Sally E McKenzie, Joanne E BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVE: To explore whether systematic reviewers selectively include trial effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple are available, and what impact this may have on meta-analytic effects. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. DATA SOURCES: We randomly selected systematic reviews of interventions from 2 clinical specialties published between January 2010 and 2012. The first presented meta-analysis of a continuous outcome in each review was selected (index meta-analysis), and all trial effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis (eg, from multiple scales or time points) were extracted from trial reports. ANALYSIS: We calculated a statistic (the Potential Bias Index (PBI)) to quantify and test for evidence of selective inclusion. The PBI ranges from 0 to 1; values above or below 0.5 are suggestive of selective inclusion of effect estimates more or less favourable to the intervention, respectively. The impact of any potential selective inclusion was investigated by comparing the index meta-analytic standardised mean difference (SMD) to the median of a randomly constructed distribution of meta-analytic SMDs (representing the meta-analytic SMD expected when there is no selective inclusion). RESULTS: 31 reviews (250 trials) were included. The estimated PBI was 0.57 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.63), suggesting that trial effect estimates that were more favourable to the intervention were included in meta-analyses slightly more often than expected under a process consistent with random selection; however, the 95% CI included the null hypothesis of no selective inclusion. Any potential selective inclusion did not have an important impact on the meta-analytic effects. CONCLUSION: There was no clear evidence that selective inclusion of trial effect estimates occurred in this sample of meta-analyses. Further research on selective inclusion in other clinical specialties is needed. To enable readers to assess the risk of selective inclusion bias, we recommend that systematic reviewers report the methods used to select effect estimates to include in meta-analyses. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-04-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4853995/ /pubmed/27121706 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011863 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Research Methods
Page, Matthew J
Forbes, Andrew
Chau, Marisa
Green, Sally E
McKenzie, Joanne E
Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study
title Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study
title_full Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study
title_fullStr Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study
title_full_unstemmed Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study
title_short Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study
title_sort investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4853995/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27121706
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011863
work_keys_str_mv AT pagematthewj investigationofbiasinmetaanalysesduetoselectiveinclusionoftrialeffectestimatesempiricalstudy
AT forbesandrew investigationofbiasinmetaanalysesduetoselectiveinclusionoftrialeffectestimatesempiricalstudy
AT chaumarisa investigationofbiasinmetaanalysesduetoselectiveinclusionoftrialeffectestimatesempiricalstudy
AT greensallye investigationofbiasinmetaanalysesduetoselectiveinclusionoftrialeffectestimatesempiricalstudy
AT mckenziejoannee investigationofbiasinmetaanalysesduetoselectiveinclusionoftrialeffectestimatesempiricalstudy