Literature DB >> 10235168

Recursive cumulative meta-analysis: a diagnostic for the evolution of total randomized evidence from group and individual patient data.

J P Ioannidis1, D G Contopoulos-Ioannidis, J Lau.   

Abstract

Meta-analyses of randomized evidence may include published, unpublished, and updated data in an ongoing estimation process that continuously accommodates more data. Synthesis may be performed either with group data or with meta-analysis of individual patient data (MIPD). Although MIPD with updated data is considered the gold standard of evidence, there is a need for a careful study of the impact different sources of data have on a meta-analysis and of the change in the treatment effect estimates over sequential information steps. Unpublished data and late-appearing data may be different from early-appearing data. Updated information after the end of the main study follow-up may be affected by cross-overs, missing information, and unblinding. The estimated treatment effect may thus depend on the completeness and updating of the available evidence. To address these issues, we present recursive cumulative meta-analysis (RCM) as an extension of cumulative metaanalysis. Recursive cumulative meta-analysis is based on the principle of recalculating the results of a cumulative meta-analysis with each new or updated piece of information and focuses on the evolution of the treatment effect as a more complete and updated picture of the evidence becomes available. An examination of the perturbations of the cumulative treatment effect over sequential information steps may signal the presence of bias or heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Recursive cumulative meta-analysis may suggest whether there is a true underlying treatment effect to which the meta-analysis is converging and how treatment effects are sequentially altered by new or modified evidence. The method is illustrated with an example from the conduct of an MIPD on acyclovir in human immunodeficiency virus infection. The relative strengths and limitations of both metaanalysis of group data and MIPD are discussed through the RCM perspective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10235168     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00159-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  19 in total

1.  Molecular bias.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Peripheral brain-derived neurotrophic factor in schizophrenia and the role of antipsychotics: meta-analysis and implications.

Authors:  B S Fernandes; J Steiner; M Berk; M L Molendijk; A Gonzalez-Pinto; C W Turck; P Nardin; C-A Gonçalves
Journal:  Mol Psychiatry       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 15.992

Review 3.  Ventilation strategies and outcome in randomised trials of high frequency ventilation.

Authors:  U H Thome; W A Carlo; F Pohlandt
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2005-06-07       Impact factor: 5.747

4.  Living Systematic Reviews.

Authors:  Mark Simmonds; Julian H Elliott; Anneliese Synnot; Tari Turner
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

5.  Angiotensin-converting enzyme gene polymorphism is associated with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jian-Bo Zhou; Jin-Kui Yang; Jing-Kai Lu; Yan-Hua An
Journal:  Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2009-08-05       Impact factor: 2.316

Review 6.  Integrative data analysis in clinical psychology research.

Authors:  Andrea M Hussong; Patrick J Curran; Daniel J Bauer
Journal:  Annu Rev Clin Psychol       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 18.561

7.  Evolution of treatment effects over time: empirical insight from recursive cumulative metaanalyses.

Authors:  J Ioannidis; J Lau
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-01-23       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 8.  When and how to update systematic reviews.

Authors:  D Moher; A Tsertsvadze; A C Tricco; M Eccles; J Grimshaw; M Sampson; N Barrowman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2008-01-23

9.  A comparison of statistical methods for identifying out-of-date systematic reviews.

Authors:  Porjai Pattanittum; Malinee Laopaiboon; David Moher; Pisake Lumbiganon; Chetta Ngamjarus
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Individual participant data meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses based on aggregate data.

Authors:  Catrin Tudur Smith; Maura Marcucci; Sarah J Nolan; Alfonso Iorio; Maria Sudell; Richard Riley; Maroeska M Rovers; Paula R Williamson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-09-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.