OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether it is valid to combine follow-up and change data when conducting meta-analyses of continuous outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee/hip, which assessed patient-reported pain. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) based on follow-up and change data, and pooled within-trial differences in SMDs. We also derived pooled SMDs indicating the largest treatment effect within a trial (optimistic selection of SMDs) and derived pooled SMDs from the estimate indicating the smallest treatment effect within a trial (pessimistic selection of SMDs). RESULTS: A total of 21 meta-analyses with 189 trials with 292 randomized comparisons in 41,256 patients were included. On average, SMDs were 0.04 standard deviation units more beneficial when follow-up values were used (difference in SMDs: -0.04; 95% confidence interval: -0.13, 0.06; P=0.44). In 13 meta-analyses (62%), there was a relevant difference in clinical and/or significance level between optimistic and pessimistic pooled SMDs. CONCLUSION: On average, there is no relevant difference between follow-up and change data SMDs, and combining these estimates in meta-analysis is generally valid. Decision on which type of data to use when both follow-up and change data are available should be prespecified in the meta-analysis protocol.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether it is valid to combine follow-up and change data when conducting meta-analyses of continuous outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee/hip, which assessed patient-reported pain. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) based on follow-up and change data, and pooled within-trial differences in SMDs. We also derived pooled SMDs indicating the largest treatment effect within a trial (optimistic selection of SMDs) and derived pooled SMDs from the estimate indicating the smallest treatment effect within a trial (pessimistic selection of SMDs). RESULTS: A total of 21 meta-analyses with 189 trials with 292 randomized comparisons in 41,256 patients were included. On average, SMDs were 0.04 standard deviation units more beneficial when follow-up values were used (difference in SMDs: -0.04; 95% confidence interval: -0.13, 0.06; P=0.44). In 13 meta-analyses (62%), there was a relevant difference in clinical and/or significance level between optimistic and pessimistic pooled SMDs. CONCLUSION: On average, there is no relevant difference between follow-up and change data SMDs, and combining these estimates in meta-analysis is generally valid. Decision on which type of data to use when both follow-up and change data are available should be prespecified in the meta-analysis protocol.
Authors: Tomoko Fujii; Riki Ganeko; Yuki Kataoka; Toshi A Furukawa; Robin Featherstone; Kent Doi; Jean-Louis Vincent; Daniela Pasero; René Robert; Claudio Ronco; Sean M Bagshaw Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Brian R Ott; Lori A Daiello; Issa J Dahabreh; Beth A Springate; Kimberly Bixby; Manjari Murali; Thomas A Trikalinos Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-01-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Stefan Leucht; Spyridon Siafis; Rolf R Engel; Johannes Schneider-Thoma; Irene Bighelli; Andrea Cipriani; Toshi A Furukawa; John M Davis Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 7.348
Authors: Erlend Faltinsen; Adnan Todorovac; Laura Staxen Bruun; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Christian Gluud; Mickey T Kongerslev; Erik Simonsen; Ole Jakob Storebø Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-04-04
Authors: Ye Zhang; Rong Ren; Larry D Sanford; Linghui Yang; Yuenan Ni; Junying Zhou; Jihui Zhang; Yun-Kwok Wing; Jie Shi; Lin Lu; Xiangdong Tang Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2019-06-22 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Peter Jüni; Roman Hari; Anne W S Rutjes; Roland Fischer; Maria G Silletta; Stephan Reichenbach; Bruno R da Costa Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-10-22