Meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials: An empirical example

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 288-298

  Doi, Suhail A R ^a   Barendregt, Jan J ^a   Mozurkewich, Ellen L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Heterogeneity; Meta analysis; Quality effect; Random effect; Working conditions

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AVERAGE; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREMATURE LABOR; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; WORK ENVIRONMENT;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; ODDS RATIO; PREMATURE BIRTH; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 79551523675     PISSN: 15517144     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2010.12.006     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Conn V.S., Rantz M.J. Research methods: managing primary study quality in meta-analyses. Res Nurs Health 2003, 26(4):322-333.
2. Bailey K.R. Inter-study differences: how should they influence the interpretation and analysis of results?. Stat Med 1987, 6(3):351-360.
3. Verhagen A.P., de Vet H.C., de Bie R.A., Boers M., van den Brandt P.A. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2001, 54(7):651-654.
4. Senn S. Trying to be precise about vagueness. Stat Med 2007, 26(7):1417-1430.
5. Berard A., Bravo G. Combining studies using effect sizes and quality scores: application to bone loss in postmenopausal women. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51(10):801-807.
6. Moher D., Pham B., Jones A., et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 1998, 352(9128):609-613.
7. Leeflang M., Reitsma J., Scholten R., et al. Impact of adjustment for quality on results of metaanalyses of diagnostic accuracy. Clin Chem 2007, 53(2):164-172.
8. Tritchler D. Modelling study quality in meta-analysis. Stat Med 1999, 18(16):2135-2145.
9. Doi S.A., Thalib L. A quality-effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology 2008, 19(1):94-100.
10. Doi S.A., Thalib L. An alternative quality adjustor for the quality effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology 2009, 20(2):314.
11. Woolf B. On estimating the relation between blood group and disease. Ann Hum Genet 1955, 19(4):251-253.
12. DerSimonian R., Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986, 7(3):177-188.
13. Batham A., Gupta M.A., Rastogi P., et al. Calculating prevalence of hepatitis B in India: using population weights to look for publication bias in conventional meta-analysis. Indian J Pediatr 2009, 76(12):1247-1257.
14. Al Khalaf M.M., Thalib L., Doi S.A. Combining heterogenous studies using the 724 random-effectsmodel is amistake and leads to inconclusive meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64(2):119-123.
15. Mozurkewich E.L., Luke B., Avni M., Wolf F.M. Working conditions and adverse pregnancy outcome: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2000, 95(4):623-635.
16. Poole C., Greenland S. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol 1999, 150(5):469-475.
17. Schulz K.F., Chalmers I., Hayes R.J., Altman D.G. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995, 273(5):408-412.
18. Kjaergard L.L., Villumsen J., Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001, 135(11):982-989.
19. Balk E.M., Bonis P.A., Moskowitz H., et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2002, 287(22):2973-2982.
20. Egger M., Juni P., Bartlett C., Holenstein F., Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess 2003, 7(1):1-76.
21. Greenland S. Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol 1994, 140(3):290-296.
22. Herbison P., Hay-Smith J., Gillespie W.J. Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59(12):1249-1256.
23. Juni P., Witschi A., Bloch R., Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999, 282(11):1054-1060.
24. Whiting P., Harbord R., Kleijnen J. No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005, 5:19.
25. Moja L.P., Telaro E., D'Amico R., et al. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ 2005, 330(7499):1053.
26. Sweeting M.J., Sutton A.J., Lambert P.C. What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. Stat Med 2004, 23(9):1351-1375.
27. McCullagh P., Nelder J.A. Generalized linear models 1983, Chapman & Hall, London, edn.
28. Tjur T. Nonlinear regression, quasi likelihood, and overdispersion in generalized linear models. Am Stat 1998, 52(3):222-227.
29. Lindsey J.K. On the use of corrections for overdispersion. Appl Stat 1999, 48:553-561.
30. Higgins J.P., Thompson S.G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002, 21(11):1539-1558.
31. Realini J.P., Goldzieher J.W. Oral contraceptives and cardiovascular disease: a critique of the epidemiologic studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985, 152(6 Pt 2):729-798.
32. Verhagen A.P., de Vet H.C., de Bie R.A., et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51(12):1235-1241.
33. Deeks J.J., Dinnes J., D'Amico R., et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003, 7(27):1-173. iii-x.
34. Downs S.H., Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998, 52(6):377-384.
35. Slim K., Nini E., Forestier D., et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003, 73(9):712-716.
36. Wells G., Shea B., O'Connell D., et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses last accessed 15th June. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm.
37. Concato J. Observational versus experimental studies: what's the evidence for a hierarchy?. NeuroRx 2004, 1(3):341-347.