Jennifer C Stone1, Kathryn Glass2, Zachary Munn3, Peter Tugwell4, Suhail A R Doi5. 1. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia; SYRCLE, Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 2. National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 3. The Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 5. Department of Population Medicine, College of Medicine, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar. Electronic address: sardoi@gmx.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The quality of primary research is commonly assessed before inclusion in meta-analyses. Findings are discussed in the context of the quality appraisal by categorizing studies according to risk of bias. The impact of appraised risk of bias on study outcomes is typically judged by the reader; however, several methods have been developed to quantify this risk of bias assessment and incorporate it into the pooled results of meta-analysis, a process known as bias adjustment. The advantages, potential limitations, and applicability of these methods are not well defined. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparative evaluation of the applicability of the various methods and their limitations are discussed using two examples from the literature. These methods include weighting, stratification, regression, use of empirically based prior distributions, and elicitation by experts. RESULTS: Use of the two examples from the literature suggest that all methods provide similar adjustment. Methods differed mainly in applicability and limitations. CONCLUSION: Bias adjustment is a feasible process in meta-analysis with several strategies currently available. Quality effects modelling was found to be easily implementable with fewer limitations in comparison to other methods.
BACKGROUND: The quality of primary research is commonly assessed before inclusion in meta-analyses. Findings are discussed in the context of the quality appraisal by categorizing studies according to risk of bias. The impact of appraised risk of bias on study outcomes is typically judged by the reader; however, several methods have been developed to quantify this risk of bias assessment and incorporate it into the pooled results of meta-analysis, a process known as bias adjustment. The advantages, potential limitations, and applicability of these methods are not well defined. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparative evaluation of the applicability of the various methods and their limitations are discussed using two examples from the literature. These methods include weighting, stratification, regression, use of empirically based prior distributions, and elicitation by experts. RESULTS: Use of the two examples from the literature suggest that all methods provide similar adjustment. Methods differed mainly in applicability and limitations. CONCLUSION: Bias adjustment is a feasible process in meta-analysis with several strategies currently available. Quality effects modelling was found to be easily implementable with fewer limitations in comparison to other methods.
Authors: Gorm E Shackelford; Philip A Martin; Amelia S C Hood; Alec P Christie; Elena Kulinskaya; William J Sutherland Journal: BMC Biol Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 7.431
Authors: Alec P Christie; David Abecasis; Mehdi Adjeroud; Juan C Alonso; Tatsuya Amano; Alvaro Anton; Barry P Baldigo; Rafael Barrientos; Jake E Bicknell; Deborah A Buhl; Just Cebrian; Ricardo S Ceia; Luciana Cibils-Martina; Sarah Clarke; Joachim Claudet; Michael D Craig; Dominique Davoult; Annelies De Backer; Mary K Donovan; Tyler D Eddy; Filipe M França; Jonathan P A Gardner; Bradley P Harris; Ari Huusko; Ian L Jones; Brendan P Kelaher; Janne S Kotiaho; Adrià López-Baucells; Heather L Major; Aki Mäki-Petäys; Beatriz Martín; Carlos A Martín; Philip A Martin; Daniel Mateos-Molina; Robert A McConnaughey; Michele Meroni; Christoph F J Meyer; Kade Mills; Monica Montefalcone; Norbertas Noreika; Carlos Palacín; Anjali Pande; C Roland Pitcher; Carlos Ponce; Matt Rinella; Ricardo Rocha; María C Ruiz-Delgado; Juan J Schmitter-Soto; Jill A Shaffer; Shailesh Sharma; Anna A Sher; Doriane Stagnol; Thomas R Stanley; Kevin D E Stokesbury; Aurora Torres; Oliver Tully; Teppo Vehanen; Corinne Watts; Qingyuan Zhao; William J Sutherland Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Sylvester Dodzi Nyadanu; Gizachew Assefa Tessema; Ben Mullins; Bernard Kumi-Boateng; Michelle Lee Bell; Gavin Pereira Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 3.390