Literature DB >> 26061467

Development of a combined database for meta-epidemiological research.

Jelena Savović1, Ross J Harris2, Lesley Wood3, Rebecca Beynon1, Doug Altman4, Bodil Als-Nielsen5, Ethan M Balk6, Jonathan Deeks7, Lise Lotte Gluud8, Christian Gluud9, John P A Ioannidis10,11,12, Peter Jűni13,14, David Moher15, Julie Pildal16, Kenneth F Schulz17, Jonathan A C Sterne18.   

Abstract

Collections of meta-analyses assembled in meta-epidemiological studies are used to study associations of trial characteristics with intervention effect estimates. However, methods and findings are not consistent across studies. To combine data from 10 meta-epidemiological studies into a single database, and derive a harmonized dataset without overlap between meta-analyses. The database design allowed trials to be contained in different meta-analyses, multiple meta-analyses in systematic reviews, overlapping meta-analyses between systematic reviews, and multiple references to the same trial or review. Unique identifiers were assigned to each reference and used to identify duplicate trials. Sets of meta-analyses with overlapping trials were identified and duplicates removed. Overlapping trials were used to examine agreement between assessments of trial characteristics. The combined database contained 427 reviews, 454 meta-analyses and 4874 trial results. Of these, 258 meta-analyses were unique, while for 196 at least one trial overlapped with another meta-analysis. Median kappa statistics for reliability of assessments were 0.60 for sequence generation, 0.58 for allocation concealment and 0.87 for blinding. Based on inspection of sets of overlapping meta-analyses, 91 meta-analyses containing 1344 trial results were removed. Additionally, 24 duplicated trial results were removed from 16 meta-analyses, to derive a final database containing 363 meta-analyses and 3477 unique trial results. The final database will be used to examine the combined evidence on sources of bias in randomized controlled trials. The strategy used to remove overlap between meta-analyses may be of use for future empirical research.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bias; data management; meta‐analysis; meta‐epidemiology; systematic reviews

Year:  2010        PMID: 26061467     DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Synth Methods        ISSN: 1759-2879            Impact factor:   5.273


  5 in total

1.  The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 2.  Older studies can underestimate prognosis of glioblastoma biomarker in meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study for study-level effect in the current literature.

Authors:  Victor M Lu; Kevin Phan; Julia X M Yin; Kerrie L McDonald
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 4.130

3.  Evidence synthesis for decision making 3: heterogeneity--subgroups, meta-regression, bias, and bias-adjustment.

Authors:  Sofia Dias; Alex J Sutton; Nicky J Welton; A E Ades
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Have We Substantially Underestimated the Impact of Improved Sanitation Coverage on Child Health? A Generalized Additive Model Panel Analysis of Global Data on Child Mortality and Malnutrition.

Authors:  Paul R Hunter; Annette Prüss-Ustün
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Comparison of intervention effects in split-mouth and parallel-arm randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron; Hélène Fron-Chabouis; Frédéric Courson; Pierre Durieux
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-05-11       Impact factor: 4.615

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.