Cargando…

Just how plain are plain tobacco packs: re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods

BACKGROUND: Comparisons between narrative synthesis and meta-analysis as synthesis methods in systematic reviews are uncommon within the same systematic review. We re-analysed a systematic review on the effects of plain packaging of tobacco on attractiveness. We sought to compare different synthesis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Melendez-Torres, G J, Thomas, James, Lorenc, Theo, O’Mara-Eves, Alison, Petticrew, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30290842
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0821-7
_version_ 1783361211071463424
author Melendez-Torres, G J
Thomas, James
Lorenc, Theo
O’Mara-Eves, Alison
Petticrew, Mark
author_facet Melendez-Torres, G J
Thomas, James
Lorenc, Theo
O’Mara-Eves, Alison
Petticrew, Mark
author_sort Melendez-Torres, G J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Comparisons between narrative synthesis and meta-analysis as synthesis methods in systematic reviews are uncommon within the same systematic review. We re-analysed a systematic review on the effects of plain packaging of tobacco on attractiveness. We sought to compare different synthesis approaches within the same systematic review and shed light on the comparative benefits of each approach. METHODS: In our re-analysis, we included results relating to attractiveness in included reports. We extracted findings from studies and converted all estimates of differences in attractiveness to Cohen’s d. We used multilevel meta-analysis to account for clustering of effect sizes within studies. RESULTS: Of the 19 studies reporting results on attractiveness, seven studies that included between-subjects analyses could be included in the meta-analysis. Plain packs were less attractive than branded packs (d = − 0.59, 95% CI [− 0.71, − 0.47]), with negligible but uncertain between-studies heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%, 95% CI [0.00, 70.81]) and high within-study heterogeneity (I(2) = 92.6%, 95% CI [91.04, 93.90]). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis found, similar to the narrative synthesis, that respondents typically rated plain packaging as less attractive than alternative (e.g. branded) tobacco packs. However, there were several trade-offs between analysis methods in the types and bodies of evidence each one contained and in the difference between partial precision and breadth of conclusions. Analysis methods were different in respect of the role of judgement and contextual variation and in terms of estimation and unexpected effect modification. In addition, we noted that analysis methods were different in how they accounted for heterogeneity and consistency. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0821-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6173910
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61739102018-10-15 Just how plain are plain tobacco packs: re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods Melendez-Torres, G J Thomas, James Lorenc, Theo O’Mara-Eves, Alison Petticrew, Mark Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Comparisons between narrative synthesis and meta-analysis as synthesis methods in systematic reviews are uncommon within the same systematic review. We re-analysed a systematic review on the effects of plain packaging of tobacco on attractiveness. We sought to compare different synthesis approaches within the same systematic review and shed light on the comparative benefits of each approach. METHODS: In our re-analysis, we included results relating to attractiveness in included reports. We extracted findings from studies and converted all estimates of differences in attractiveness to Cohen’s d. We used multilevel meta-analysis to account for clustering of effect sizes within studies. RESULTS: Of the 19 studies reporting results on attractiveness, seven studies that included between-subjects analyses could be included in the meta-analysis. Plain packs were less attractive than branded packs (d = − 0.59, 95% CI [− 0.71, − 0.47]), with negligible but uncertain between-studies heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%, 95% CI [0.00, 70.81]) and high within-study heterogeneity (I(2) = 92.6%, 95% CI [91.04, 93.90]). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis found, similar to the narrative synthesis, that respondents typically rated plain packaging as less attractive than alternative (e.g. branded) tobacco packs. However, there were several trade-offs between analysis methods in the types and bodies of evidence each one contained and in the difference between partial precision and breadth of conclusions. Analysis methods were different in respect of the role of judgement and contextual variation and in terms of estimation and unexpected effect modification. In addition, we noted that analysis methods were different in how they accounted for heterogeneity and consistency. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0821-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6173910/ /pubmed/30290842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0821-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Melendez-Torres, G J
Thomas, James
Lorenc, Theo
O’Mara-Eves, Alison
Petticrew, Mark
Just how plain are plain tobacco packs: re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods
title Just how plain are plain tobacco packs: re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods
title_full Just how plain are plain tobacco packs: re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods
title_fullStr Just how plain are plain tobacco packs: re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods
title_full_unstemmed Just how plain are plain tobacco packs: re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods
title_short Just how plain are plain tobacco packs: re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods
title_sort just how plain are plain tobacco packs: re-analysis of a systematic review using multilevel meta-analysis suggests lessons about the comparative benefits of synthesis methods
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30290842
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0821-7
work_keys_str_mv AT melendeztorresgj justhowplainareplaintobaccopacksreanalysisofasystematicreviewusingmultilevelmetaanalysissuggestslessonsaboutthecomparativebenefitsofsynthesismethods
AT thomasjames justhowplainareplaintobaccopacksreanalysisofasystematicreviewusingmultilevelmetaanalysissuggestslessonsaboutthecomparativebenefitsofsynthesismethods
AT lorenctheo justhowplainareplaintobaccopacksreanalysisofasystematicreviewusingmultilevelmetaanalysissuggestslessonsaboutthecomparativebenefitsofsynthesismethods
AT omaraevesalison justhowplainareplaintobaccopacksreanalysisofasystematicreviewusingmultilevelmetaanalysissuggestslessonsaboutthecomparativebenefitsofsynthesismethods
AT petticrewmark justhowplainareplaintobaccopacksreanalysisofasystematicreviewusingmultilevelmetaanalysissuggestslessonsaboutthecomparativebenefitsofsynthesismethods