Literature DB >> 31957472

The choice and definition of summary measure for meta-analysis of clinical studies with binary outcomes: effect on clinical interpretation.

Andrew A Plumb1, Steve Halligan1, Susan Mallett2.   

Abstract

Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses concern the effect of a healthcare intervention on a binary outcome i.e. occurrence (or not) of a particular event. Usually, the overall effect, pooled across all studies included in the meta-analysis, is summarised using the odds ratio (OR) or the relative risk (RR). Under most circumstances, it is obvious how to identify what should be considered as the event of interest-for example, death or a clinically important side-effect. However, on occasion it may not be clear in which "direction" the event should be specified-such as attendance (vs non-attendance) at cancer screening. Usually, this choice is not critical to the overall conclusion of the meta-analysis, but occasionally it can lead to differences in how the included studies are pooled, ultimately affecting the overall meta-analytic result, particularly when using RRs rather than ORs. In this commentary, we will explain this phenomenon in more detail using examples from the literature, and explore how analysts and readers can avoid some potential pitfalls.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31957472      PMCID: PMC7362907          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190976

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  13 in total

Review 1.  Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses.

Authors:  E A Engels; C H Schmid; N Terrin; I Olkin; J Lau
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Statistics notes. The odds ratio.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-05-27

3.  Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes.

Authors:  Jonathan J Deeks
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 4.  When can odds ratios mislead?

Authors:  H T Davies; I K Crombie; M Tavakoli
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-03-28

5.  Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

Authors:  Miranda Cumpston; Tianjing Li; Matthew J Page; Jacqueline Chandler; Vivian A Welch; Julian Pt Higgins; James Thomas
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-03

6.  Reduced and Full-Preparation CT Colonography, Fecal Immunochemical Test, and Colonoscopy for Population Screening of Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Lapo Sali; Mario Mascalchi; Massimo Falchini; Leonardo Ventura; Francesca Carozzi; Guido Castiglione; Silvia Delsanto; Beatrice Mallardi; Paola Mantellini; Stefano Milani; Marco Zappa; Grazia Grazzini
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  A comparison of colorectal neoplasia screening tests: a multicentre community-based study of the impact of consumer choice.

Authors: 
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2006-06-05       Impact factor: 7.738

8.  Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  He Zhu; Fudong Li; Ke Tao; Jing Wang; Carissa Scurlock; Xiaofei Zhang; Hong Xu
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael Borenstein; Larry V Hedges; Julian P T Higgins; Hannah R Rothstein
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2010-11-21       Impact factor: 5.273

10.  Virtual colonoscopy, optical colonoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening: results of a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  John J You; Yudong Liu; John Kirby; Parag Vora; Paul Moayyedi
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.