Consensus-based recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Gagnier, Joel J ^a,b   Morgenstern, Hal ^b   Altman, Doug G ^c   Berlin, Jesse ^d   Chang, Stephanie ^e   McCulloch, Peter ^c   Sun, Xin ^f   Moher, David ^g,h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d Research and Development Division   (United States)

^e AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY   (United States)

^f OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^h UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; CONSENSUS; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DELPHI STUDY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CONSENSUS; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84883172203     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-106     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011), Higgins JPT, Green S, 2011 Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. The Cochrane Collaboration
2. Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Pildal J, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ, Hilden J, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Int J Epidemiol 2007 36 4 847 857
3. Knowledge for knowledge translation: The role of the Cochrane Collaboration. Grimshaw JM, Santesso N, Cumpston M, Mayhew A, McGowan J, J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006 26 55 62
4. Systematic reviews and knowledge translation. Tugwell P, Robinson V, Grimshaw J, Santesso N, Bull World Health Organ 2006 84 643 651
5. British Medical Journal. Clinical Evidence 2009 Available at: http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/index.jsp. Accessed 16 Feb 2009
6. Canadian Institutes of Health Research 2009 Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documentsrct-reg-e.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2009
7. Cochrane Collaboration Available at: http://cochrane.org. Accessed 20 Nov 2012
8. Systematic reviews: Time to address clinical and policy relevance as well as methodological rigor. Laupacis A, Strauss S, Ann Int Med 2007 147 4 273 275
9. Helping patients make better personal health decisions: The promise of patient-centered outcomes research. Barry MJ, JAMA 2011 306 11 1258 1259
10. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Available at: http://www.pcori.org/patient-centered-outcomes-research/. Accessed 1 May 2012
11. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group, PLoS Med 2009 6 1000097
12. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Lancet 2009 374 86 89
13. Taking healthcare interventions from trial to practice. Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Altman DG, Bastian H, Boutron I, Brice A, Jamtvedt G, Farmer A, Ghersi D, Groves T, Heneghan C, Hill S, Lewin S, Michie S, Parera R, Pomeroy V, Tilson J, Sheppaard S, Williams JW, BMJ 2010 341 3852
14. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S, BMJ 2008 336 1472 1474
15. Creating clinically relevant knowledge from systematic reviews: The challenges of knowledge translation. Scott NA, Moga C, Barton P, Rashiq S, Schopflocher D, Taenzer P, Harstall C, on behalf of the Alberta Ambassador Program Team, J Eval Clin Pract 2007 13 4 681 688
16. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. Thompson SG, BMJ 1994 309 1351 1355
17. Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice. Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman A, J Health Serv Res Policy 2002 7 1 51 61
18. Methods of assessing clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews: A methodologic review. Gagnier JJ, Beyene J, Moher D, Boon H, Bombardier C, BMC Med Res Methodol 2012 12 1 111
19. Clinical heterogeneity was a common problem in Cochrane reviews of physiotherapy and occupational therapy. van den Ende CHM, Steultjens EMJ, Bouter LM, Dekker J, J Clin Epidemiol 2006 59 914 919
20. Comparative effectiveness review methods: clinical heterogeneity. West SL, Gartlehner G, Mansfield AJ, Poole C, Tant E, Lenfestey N, Lux LJ, Amoozegar J, Morton SC, Carey TC, Viswanathan M, Lohr KN, Comparative Effectiveness Review Methods: Clinical Heterogeneity Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 2010 Available at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/; posted 28 Sept 2010
21. Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews. Bender R, Bunce C, Clarke M, Gates S, Lange S, Pace NL, Thorlund K, J Clin Epidemiol 2008 61 9 857 865
22. Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA, Feldman HI, Stat Med 2002 21 3 371 387
23. Borenstein MA, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR, Introduction to Meta-Analysis New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons 2009
24. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2009
25. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO, J Clin Epidemiol 1995 48 1 167 171
26. Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Stat Med 2004 23 11 1663 1682
27. Khalid S, Khan RK, Kleijnen J, Antes G, Systematic Reviews to Support Evidence-based Medicine: How to Apply Findings of Health-Care Research London: Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd. 2003
28. Littell JC, Corcoran J, Pillai VK, Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008
29. Method guidelines for Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group systematic reviews. Maxwell L, Santesso N, Tugwell PS, Wells GA, Judd M, Buchbinder R, J Rheumatol 2006 33 11 2304 2311
30. Bench-to-bedside review: Avoiding pitfalls in critical care meta-analysis-funnel plots, risk estimates, types of heterogeneity, baseline risk and the ecologic fallacy. Reade MC, Delaney A, Bailey MJ, Angus DC, Crit Care 2008 12 4 220
31. Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice. Simmonds MC, Higgins JP, Stewart LA, Tierney JF, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Clin Trials 2005 2 3 209 217
32. Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F, Methods for Meta-analysis in Medical Research Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2000
33. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ, Stat Med 1999 18 20 2693 2708
34. Predictive modeling and heterogeneity of baseline risk in meta-analysis of individual patient data. Trikalinos TA, Ioannidis JP, J Clin Epidemiol 2001 54 3 245 252
35. Whitehead A, Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2002
36. National Health and Medical Research Council, How to Review the Evidence: Systematic Identification and Review of the Scientific Literature Australia: Commonwealth of Australia 2000
37. Multiple-outcome meta-analysis of clinical trials. Berkey CS, Anderson JJ, Hoaglin DC, Stat Med 1996 15 5 537 557
38. 2009 Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombarider C, van Tulder M, from the Editorial Board of the Cochrane Back Review Group, Spine 2009 34 18 1929 1941
39. The way in which intervention studies have «personality» and why it is important to meta-analysis. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB, Eval Health Prof 2001 24 3 236 254
40. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG, BMJ 2007 327 557 560
41. Meta-analysis and the exploration of causal mediating processes: A primer of examples, methods, and issues. Shadish WR, Psychol Methods 1996 1 47 65
42. Interpreting and evaluating meta-analysis. Hall JA, Rosenthal R, Eval Health Prof 1995 18 4 393 407
43. Exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis: is the L'Abbe plot useful? Song F, J Clin Epidemiol 1999 52 8 725 730
44. Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD, BMJ 2001 323 7304 101 105
45. Heterogeneity can impair the results of Cochrane meta-analyses despite accordance with statistical guidelines. Malling HJ, Thomsen AB, Andersen JS, Allergy 2008 63 12 1643 1645
46. Recent development in meta-analysis. Sutton A, Stat Med 2008 27 625 650
47. CoPlot: a tool for visualizing multivariate data in medicine. Bravata DM, Shojania KG, Olkin I, Raveh A, Stat Med 2008 27 12 2234 2247
48. Geometric interpretation of gene coexpression network analysis. Horvath S, Dong J, PLoS Comput Biol 2008 4 8 1000117
49. Phenomics: expanding the role of clinical evaluation in genomic studies. Lanktree MB, Hassell RG, Lahiry P, Hegele RA, J Investig Med 2010 58 5 700 706
50. Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards analysis. I. Background, goals, and general strategy. Concato J, Peduzzi P, Holfold TR, Feinstein AR, J Clin Epidemiol 1995 48 1495 1501
51. Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR, J Clin Epidemiol 1995 48 1503 1510
52. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR, J Clin Epidemiol 1996 49 1373 1379
53. Deriving treatment recommendations from evidence within randomized trials. The role and limitation of meta-analysis. Freemantle N, Mason J, Eccles M, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999 15 2 304 315
54. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH, Ann Intern Med 1997 127 9 820 826
55. An empirical study of the effect of the control rate as a predictor of treatment efficacy in meta-analysis of clinical trials. Schmid CH, Lau J, McIntosh MW, Cappelleri JC, Stat Med 1998 17 17 1923 1942
56. A comparison of patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Jones ADR, J Clin Epidemiol 2002 55 86 94
57. Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Staessen JA, Wang J, Gueyffier F, Thijs L, Boutitie F, Stat Med 2008 27 11 1870 1893
58. Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. Schmid CH, Stark PC, Berlin JA, Landais P, Lau J, J Clin Epidemiol 2004 57 7 683 697
59. An overview of methods and empirical comparison of aggregate data and individual patient data results for investigating heterogeneity in meta-analysis to time-to-event data. Smith CT, Williamson PR, Marson AG, J Eval Clin Pract 2002 55 86 94
60. Treating individuals 4: can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Thompson SG, Higgins JP, Lancet 2005 365 9456 341 346
61. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Britten N, Arai L, Roen K, Rodgers M, Developing methods for the narrative synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data in systematic reviews of effects Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2006 Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/projects/ narrative-synthesis.htm. Accessed 15 May 2012
62. Testing methodological guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews, effectiveness of interventions to promote smoke alarm ownership and function. Rodgers M, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Robers H, Britten N, Popay J, Evaluation 2009 15 1 49 74 http://dx.doi.rg/10.1177/ 1356389008097871
63. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003 28 12 1290 1299
64. Frequency of selecting noise variables in subset regression analysis: a simulation study. Flack V, Change PC, Am Stat 1989 41 84 86
65. Return to a note on screening regression equations. Freedman LS, Pee D, Am Stat 1989 43 279 282
66. The problem of understanding the residual error variance in forward stepwise regression. Freedman LS, Pee D, Midthune DN, Statistician 1992 41 405 412
67. Performance of logistic regression modeling: beyond the number of events per variable, the role of data structure. Couvoisier DS, Combescure C, Agoristsas T, Gayet-Ageron A, Pergneger TV, J Clin Epidemiol 2011 64 9 993 1000
68. Testing overall and moderator effects in random effects meta-regression. Huizenga HM, Visser I, Dolan CV, Br J Math Stat Psychol 2011 64 1 1 19
69. An empirical study using permutation-based resampling in meta-regression. Gagnier JJ, Bombardier C, Boon H, Moher D, Beyene J, Syst Rev 2012 1 18
70. Understanding heterogeneity in meta-analysis: the role of meta-regression. Baker W, White M, Cappelleri JC, Kluger J, Colman CI, Int J Clin Pract 2009 63 10 1426 1434
71. Gagnier JJ, Chess L, Quality of reporting of investigations of clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews Auckland New Zealand: Poster Presentation: Cochrane Colloquium, 2012 2013
72. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB, JAMA 2000 283 15 2008 2012