Cargando…

Let’s decide what would be convincing, conduct randomized trials with rigorous comparison conditions, and report tests of moderation and publication bias in meta-analyses

We appreciate Jacobson and colleagues’ thoughtful commentary on our meta-review of mobile phone-based interventions for mental health. In this response, we address 2 issues raised: requiring low to moderate heterogeneity (I(2) < 50%) and requiring no evidence of publication bias for evidence to b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goldberg, Simon B., Torous, John, Sun, Shufang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9728627/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36484072
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000127
_version_ 1784845298183438336
author Goldberg, Simon B.
Torous, John
Sun, Shufang
author_facet Goldberg, Simon B.
Torous, John
Sun, Shufang
author_sort Goldberg, Simon B.
collection PubMed
description We appreciate Jacobson and colleagues’ thoughtful commentary on our meta-review of mobile phone-based interventions for mental health. In this response, we address 2 issues raised: requiring low to moderate heterogeneity (I(2) < 50%) and requiring no evidence of publication bias for evidence to be classified as “convincing.” While we agree these represent a high bar, we disagree that these requirements are destined to fail. Other effect sizes reported in the literature, including effect sizes related to mental health interventions and effect sizes related to mobile health (mHealth) interventions (although not their combination) have met requirements for convincing evidence. Jacobson and colleagues argue that features of the mHealth interventions may produce heterogeneity when meta-analyses combine across intervention types. However, several of the effect sizes we reviewed were based on relatively homogeneous portions of the literature and many of the effect sizes we reviewed showed low to moderate heterogeneity. Ideally, future meta-analyses will examine intervention features as moderators of treatment effects. While an absence of publication bias may be a stringent criterion, all but 2 of the 34 effect sizes we reviewed did not report formal tests of publication bias. Clearly, there is a need to reach consensus on how the strength of evidence for mHealth interventions can be evaluated. From our perspective, convincing evidence will ultimately come from large-scale randomized controlled trials employing rigorous comparison conditions along with meta-analyses that do not combine across control condition types, that examine theoretically important moderators, and report formal tests of publication bias. It is this kind of evidence that the public, the clinicians, and the scientific community may need to encourage adoption of mHealth interventions for mental health treatment and prevention.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9728627
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97286272022-12-07 Let’s decide what would be convincing, conduct randomized trials with rigorous comparison conditions, and report tests of moderation and publication bias in meta-analyses Goldberg, Simon B. Torous, John Sun, Shufang PLOS Digit Health Formal Comment We appreciate Jacobson and colleagues’ thoughtful commentary on our meta-review of mobile phone-based interventions for mental health. In this response, we address 2 issues raised: requiring low to moderate heterogeneity (I(2) < 50%) and requiring no evidence of publication bias for evidence to be classified as “convincing.” While we agree these represent a high bar, we disagree that these requirements are destined to fail. Other effect sizes reported in the literature, including effect sizes related to mental health interventions and effect sizes related to mobile health (mHealth) interventions (although not their combination) have met requirements for convincing evidence. Jacobson and colleagues argue that features of the mHealth interventions may produce heterogeneity when meta-analyses combine across intervention types. However, several of the effect sizes we reviewed were based on relatively homogeneous portions of the literature and many of the effect sizes we reviewed showed low to moderate heterogeneity. Ideally, future meta-analyses will examine intervention features as moderators of treatment effects. While an absence of publication bias may be a stringent criterion, all but 2 of the 34 effect sizes we reviewed did not report formal tests of publication bias. Clearly, there is a need to reach consensus on how the strength of evidence for mHealth interventions can be evaluated. From our perspective, convincing evidence will ultimately come from large-scale randomized controlled trials employing rigorous comparison conditions along with meta-analyses that do not combine across control condition types, that examine theoretically important moderators, and report formal tests of publication bias. It is this kind of evidence that the public, the clinicians, and the scientific community may need to encourage adoption of mHealth interventions for mental health treatment and prevention. Public Library of Science 2022-11-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9728627/ /pubmed/36484072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000127 Text en © 2022 Goldberg et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Formal Comment
Goldberg, Simon B.
Torous, John
Sun, Shufang
Let’s decide what would be convincing, conduct randomized trials with rigorous comparison conditions, and report tests of moderation and publication bias in meta-analyses
title Let’s decide what would be convincing, conduct randomized trials with rigorous comparison conditions, and report tests of moderation and publication bias in meta-analyses
title_full Let’s decide what would be convincing, conduct randomized trials with rigorous comparison conditions, and report tests of moderation and publication bias in meta-analyses
title_fullStr Let’s decide what would be convincing, conduct randomized trials with rigorous comparison conditions, and report tests of moderation and publication bias in meta-analyses
title_full_unstemmed Let’s decide what would be convincing, conduct randomized trials with rigorous comparison conditions, and report tests of moderation and publication bias in meta-analyses
title_short Let’s decide what would be convincing, conduct randomized trials with rigorous comparison conditions, and report tests of moderation and publication bias in meta-analyses
title_sort let’s decide what would be convincing, conduct randomized trials with rigorous comparison conditions, and report tests of moderation and publication bias in meta-analyses
topic Formal Comment
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9728627/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36484072
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000127
work_keys_str_mv AT goldbergsimonb letsdecidewhatwouldbeconvincingconductrandomizedtrialswithrigorouscomparisonconditionsandreporttestsofmoderationandpublicationbiasinmetaanalyses
AT torousjohn letsdecidewhatwouldbeconvincingconductrandomizedtrialswithrigorouscomparisonconditionsandreporttestsofmoderationandpublicationbiasinmetaanalyses
AT sunshufang letsdecidewhatwouldbeconvincingconductrandomizedtrialswithrigorouscomparisonconditionsandreporttestsofmoderationandpublicationbiasinmetaanalyses