Cargando…

Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change

BACKGROUND: Research overlap and duplication is a recognised problem in the context of both pairwise and network systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As a case study, we carried out a scoping review to identify and examine duplicated network meta-analyses (NMAs) in a specific disease setting where...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fisher, David J., Burdett, Sarah, Vale, Claire, White, Ian R., Tierney, Jayne F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9755764/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36527153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02137-6
_version_ 1784851490101264384
author Fisher, David J.
Burdett, Sarah
Vale, Claire
White, Ian R.
Tierney, Jayne F.
author_facet Fisher, David J.
Burdett, Sarah
Vale, Claire
White, Ian R.
Tierney, Jayne F.
author_sort Fisher, David J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Research overlap and duplication is a recognised problem in the context of both pairwise and network systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As a case study, we carried out a scoping review to identify and examine duplicated network meta-analyses (NMAs) in a specific disease setting where several novel therapies have recently emerged: hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC). METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched, in January 2020, for indirect or mixed treatment comparisons or network meta-analyses of the systemic treatments docetaxel and abiraterone acetate in the mHSPC setting, with a time-to-event outcome reported on the hazard-ratio scale. Eligibility decisions were made, and data extraction performed, by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 13 eligible reviews were identified, analysing between 3 and 8 randomised comparisons, and comprising between 1773 and 7844 individual patients. Although the included trials and treatments showed a high degree of overlap, we observed considerable variation between identified reviews in terms of review aims, eligibility criteria and included data, statistical methodology, reporting and inference. Furthermore, crucial methodological details and specific source data were often unclear. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Variation across duplicated NMAs, together with reporting inadequacies, may compromise identification of best-performing treatments. Particularly in fast-moving fields, review authors should be aware of all relevant studies, and of other reviews with potential for overlap or duplication. We recommend that review protocols be published in advance, with greater clarity regarding the specific aims or scope of the project, and that reports include information on how the work builds upon existing knowledge. Source data and results should be clearly and completely presented to allow unbiased interpretation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-02137-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9755764
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97557642022-12-16 Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change Fisher, David J. Burdett, Sarah Vale, Claire White, Ian R. Tierney, Jayne F. Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Research overlap and duplication is a recognised problem in the context of both pairwise and network systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As a case study, we carried out a scoping review to identify and examine duplicated network meta-analyses (NMAs) in a specific disease setting where several novel therapies have recently emerged: hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer (mHSPC). METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched, in January 2020, for indirect or mixed treatment comparisons or network meta-analyses of the systemic treatments docetaxel and abiraterone acetate in the mHSPC setting, with a time-to-event outcome reported on the hazard-ratio scale. Eligibility decisions were made, and data extraction performed, by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 13 eligible reviews were identified, analysing between 3 and 8 randomised comparisons, and comprising between 1773 and 7844 individual patients. Although the included trials and treatments showed a high degree of overlap, we observed considerable variation between identified reviews in terms of review aims, eligibility criteria and included data, statistical methodology, reporting and inference. Furthermore, crucial methodological details and specific source data were often unclear. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Variation across duplicated NMAs, together with reporting inadequacies, may compromise identification of best-performing treatments. Particularly in fast-moving fields, review authors should be aware of all relevant studies, and of other reviews with potential for overlap or duplication. We recommend that review protocols be published in advance, with greater clarity regarding the specific aims or scope of the project, and that reports include information on how the work builds upon existing knowledge. Source data and results should be clearly and completely presented to allow unbiased interpretation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-02137-6. BioMed Central 2022-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9755764/ /pubmed/36527153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02137-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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
Fisher, David J.
Burdett, Sarah
Vale, Claire
White, Ian R.
Tierney, Jayne F.
Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change
title Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change
title_full Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change
title_fullStr Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change
title_full_unstemmed Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change
title_short Duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change
title_sort duplicated network meta-analysis in advanced prostate cancer: a case study and recommendations for change
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9755764/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36527153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02137-6
work_keys_str_mv AT fisherdavidj duplicatednetworkmetaanalysisinadvancedprostatecanceracasestudyandrecommendationsforchange
AT burdettsarah duplicatednetworkmetaanalysisinadvancedprostatecanceracasestudyandrecommendationsforchange
AT valeclaire duplicatednetworkmetaanalysisinadvancedprostatecanceracasestudyandrecommendationsforchange
AT whiteianr duplicatednetworkmetaanalysisinadvancedprostatecanceracasestudyandrecommendationsforchange
AT tierneyjaynef duplicatednetworkmetaanalysisinadvancedprostatecanceracasestudyandrecommendationsforchange