Cargando…

Evidence synthesis in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and critical appraisal

BACKGROUND: The clinical landscape of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has evolved in terms of disease definition and classification, trial designs, available therapies and treatment strategies as well as clinical guidelines. This study critically appraises published evidence synthesis studies,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schlueter, Max, Beaudet, Amélie, Davies, Evan, Gurung, Binu, Karabis, Andreas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7388228/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32723397
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-020-01241-4
_version_ 1783564271187132416
author Schlueter, Max
Beaudet, Amélie
Davies, Evan
Gurung, Binu
Karabis, Andreas
author_facet Schlueter, Max
Beaudet, Amélie
Davies, Evan
Gurung, Binu
Karabis, Andreas
author_sort Schlueter, Max
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The clinical landscape of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has evolved in terms of disease definition and classification, trial designs, available therapies and treatment strategies as well as clinical guidelines. This study critically appraises published evidence synthesis studies, i.e. meta-analyses (MA) and network-meta-analyses (NMA), to better understand their quality, validity and discuss the impact of the findings from these studies on current decision-making in PAH. METHODS: A systematic literature review to identify MA/NMA studies considering approved and available therapies for treatment of PAH was conducted. Embase, Medline and the Cochrane’s Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from database inception to April 22, 2020, supplemented by searches in health technology assessment websites. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) checklist covering six domains (relevance, credibility, analysis, reporting quality and transparency, interpretation and conflict of interest) was selected for appraisal of the included MA/NMA studies. RESULTS: Fifty-two full publications (36 MAs, 15 NMAs, and 1 MA/NMA) in PAH met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were of low quality, with none of the studies being scored as ‘strong’ across all checklist domains. Key limitations included the lack of a clearly defined, relevant decision problem, shortcomings in assessing and addressing between-study heterogeneity, and an incomplete or misleading interpretation of results. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first critical appraisal of published MA/NMA studies in PAH, suggesting low quality and validity of published evidence synthesis studies in this therapeutic area. Besides the need for direct treatment comparisons assessed in long-term randomized controlled trials, future efforts in evidence synthesis in PAH should improve analysis quality and scrutiny in order to meaningfully address challenges arising from an evolving therapeutic landscape.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7388228
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73882282020-07-31 Evidence synthesis in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and critical appraisal Schlueter, Max Beaudet, Amélie Davies, Evan Gurung, Binu Karabis, Andreas BMC Pulm Med Research Article BACKGROUND: The clinical landscape of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) has evolved in terms of disease definition and classification, trial designs, available therapies and treatment strategies as well as clinical guidelines. This study critically appraises published evidence synthesis studies, i.e. meta-analyses (MA) and network-meta-analyses (NMA), to better understand their quality, validity and discuss the impact of the findings from these studies on current decision-making in PAH. METHODS: A systematic literature review to identify MA/NMA studies considering approved and available therapies for treatment of PAH was conducted. Embase, Medline and the Cochrane’s Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from database inception to April 22, 2020, supplemented by searches in health technology assessment websites. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) checklist covering six domains (relevance, credibility, analysis, reporting quality and transparency, interpretation and conflict of interest) was selected for appraisal of the included MA/NMA studies. RESULTS: Fifty-two full publications (36 MAs, 15 NMAs, and 1 MA/NMA) in PAH met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were of low quality, with none of the studies being scored as ‘strong’ across all checklist domains. Key limitations included the lack of a clearly defined, relevant decision problem, shortcomings in assessing and addressing between-study heterogeneity, and an incomplete or misleading interpretation of results. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first critical appraisal of published MA/NMA studies in PAH, suggesting low quality and validity of published evidence synthesis studies in this therapeutic area. Besides the need for direct treatment comparisons assessed in long-term randomized controlled trials, future efforts in evidence synthesis in PAH should improve analysis quality and scrutiny in order to meaningfully address challenges arising from an evolving therapeutic landscape. BioMed Central 2020-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7388228/ /pubmed/32723397 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-020-01241-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Schlueter, Max
Beaudet, Amélie
Davies, Evan
Gurung, Binu
Karabis, Andreas
Evidence synthesis in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and critical appraisal
title Evidence synthesis in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and critical appraisal
title_full Evidence synthesis in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and critical appraisal
title_fullStr Evidence synthesis in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and critical appraisal
title_full_unstemmed Evidence synthesis in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and critical appraisal
title_short Evidence synthesis in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and critical appraisal
title_sort evidence synthesis in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and critical appraisal
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7388228/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32723397
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-020-01241-4
work_keys_str_mv AT schluetermax evidencesynthesisinpulmonaryarterialhypertensionasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT beaudetamelie evidencesynthesisinpulmonaryarterialhypertensionasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT daviesevan evidencesynthesisinpulmonaryarterialhypertensionasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT gurungbinu evidencesynthesisinpulmonaryarterialhypertensionasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal
AT karabisandreas evidencesynthesisinpulmonaryarterialhypertensionasystematicreviewandcriticalappraisal