Addressing multimorbidity in evidence integration and synthesis

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 661-669

  Trikalinos, Thomas A ^a   Segal, Jodi B ^b   Boyd, Cynthia M ^b  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

clinical practice guidelines; comorbidity; consensus; systematic review methods

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMORBIDITY; ECOLOGICAL FALLACY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEASIBILITY STUDY; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN; INTEGRATION; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MORBIDITY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SELECTION BIAS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VALIDITY; WORK; ORGANIZATION; STANDARDS;

COMORBIDITY; CONGRESSES AS TOPIC; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC;

EID: 84898596728     PISSN: 08848734     EISSN: 15251497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-013-2661-4     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Lugtenberg M, Burgers JS, Clancy C, Westert GP, Schneider EC. Current guidelines have limited applicability to patients with comorbid conditions: a systematic analysis of evidence-based guidelines. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(10):e25987.
2. Fortin M, Contant E, Savard C, Hudon C, Poitras ME, Almirall J. Canadian guidelines for clinical practice: an analysis of their quality and relevance to the care of adults with comorbidity. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:74.
3. Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294(6):716-24.
4. Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2007;297(11):1233-40.
5. Zulman DM, Sussman JB, Chen X, Cigolle CT, Blaum CS, Hayward RA. Examining the evidence: a systematic review of the inclusion and analysis of older adults in randomized controlled trials. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(7):783-90.
6. Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2007;298(10):1209-12.
7. Boyd CM, Vollenweider D, Puhan MA. Informing evidence-based decision-making for patients with comorbidity: availability of necessary information in clinical trials for chronic diseases. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):e41601.
8. Weiss CO, Varadhan R, Puhan M, Vickers A, Bandeen-Roche K, Boyd CM, Kent DA. Multimorbidity and evidence generation, JGIM. 2013; doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2660-5.
9. Uhlig K, Leff B, Kent DM, Dy S, Brunnhuber K, Burgers JS, Greenfield S, Guyatt G, High K, Leipzig R, Mulrow C, Schmader K, Schunemann H, Walter LC, Woodcock J, Boyd CM. A framework for crafting clinical practice guidelines that are relevant to the care and management of people with multimorbidity. J Gen Intern Med. 2013. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2659-y.
10. Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, eds. Committee on standards for systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research board on health care services. Finding what works in health care, standards for systematic reviews. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, The National Academies Press. www.nap.edu
11. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
12. Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S, Sharp BA. AHRQ series paper 1: comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):481-3.
13. Helfand M, Balshem H. AHRQ series paper 2: principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):484-90.
14. Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):491-501.
15. Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):502-12.
16. Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions-agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):513-23.
17. Relevo R, Balshem H. Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1168-77.
18. Tsertsvadze A, Maglione M, Chou R, et al. Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: current efforts in AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1208-15.
19. Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1187-97.
20. Dissemination CfRa. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, UK: University of York; 2009.
21. Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, eds. Committee on standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines board on health care services. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies the National Academies Press. www.nap.edu
22. Steinberg KK, Smith SJ, Stroup DF, et al. Comparison of effect estimates from a meta-analysis of summary data from published studies and from a meta-analysis using individual patient data for ovarian cancer studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145(10):917-25.
23. Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):76-97.
24. Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380-7.
25. Vollenweider D, Boyd CM, Puhan MA. High prevalence of potential biases threatens the interpretation of trials in patients with chronic disease. BMC Med. 2011;9:73.
26. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):395-400.
27. Guiding principles for the care of older adults with multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians: American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity. J Am Geriatr Soc. Oct 2012;60(10):E1-E25.
28. Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA Focused Update of the Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST- Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Updating the 2007 Guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011;123(18):2022-60.
29. Dahabreh IJ, Sheldrick RC, Paulus JK, et al. Do observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? A systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(15):1893-901.
30. MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AM. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(34):1-154.
31. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1887-92.
32. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1878-86.
33. Byar DP. Why data bases should not replace randomized clinical trials. Biometrics. 1980;36(2):337-42.
34. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41-55.
35. Gluud LL, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Woods L, Harris R, Sterne JA. Correction: reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(3):219.
36. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601-5.
37. Moja LP, Telaro E, D'Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005;330(7499):1053.
38. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(11):982-9.
39. 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):609-13.
40. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273(5):408-12.
41. Gabler NB, Duan N, Liao D, Elmore JG, Ganiats TG, Kravitz RL. Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge? Trials. 2009;10:43.
42. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.
43. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in healthcare. Meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2008.
44. Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage; 2009.
45. Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Treating individuals 4: can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Lancet. 2005;365(9456):341-6.
46. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet. 1998;351(9096):123-7.
47. Berlin JA. Invited commentary: benefits of heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;142(4):383-7.
48. Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ. 1994;309(6965):1351-5.
49. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693-708.
50. Schmid CH, Stark PC, Berlin JA, Landais P, Lau J. Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(7):683-97.
51. Morgenstern H. Uses of ecologic analysis in epidemiologic research. Am J Public Health. 1982;72(12):1336-44.
52. Trikalinos TA, Olkin I. A method for the meta-analysis of mutually exclusive binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2008;27(21):4279-300.
53. Kirkham JJ, Riley RD, Williamson PR. A multivariate meta-analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews. Stat Med. 2012;31(20):2179-95.
54. Mavridis D, Salanti G. A practical introduction to multivariate meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22(2):133-58. doi: 10.1177/0962280211432219
55. Jackson D, Riley R, White IR. Multivariate meta-analysis: Potential and promise. Stat Med. 2011;30(20):2481-98.
56. Riley RD, Thompson JR, Abrams KR. An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown. Biostatistics. 2008;9(1):172-86.
57. Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, Antczak-Bouckoms A, Mosteller F, Colditz GA. Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes by regression with random effects. Stat Med. 1998;17(22):2537-50.
58. Trikalinos TA, Olkin I. Meta-analysis of effect sizes reported at multiple time points: a multivariate approach. Clin Trials. 2012;9(5):610-20.
59. Lu G, Ades AE, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Briggs AH, Caldwell DM. Meta-analysis of mixed treatment comparisons at multiple follow-up times. Stat Med. 2007;26(20):3681-99.
60. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313-24.
61. Cipriani A, Barbui C, Rizzo C, Salanti G. What is a multiple treatments meta-analysis? Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2012;21(2):151-3.
62. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment- comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;14(4):429-37.
63. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;14(4):417-28.
64. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat in Med. 2004;23(20):3105-24.
65. Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):80-97.
66. Jansen JP. Network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate level data. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):177-90.
67. Salanti G, Schmid CH. Research Synthesis Methods special issue on network meta-analysis: introduction from the editors. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):69-70.
68. Hedges LV, Tipton E, Johnson MC. Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(1):39-65.
69. Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1106-10.
70. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006-12.
71. Rogowski WH, Grosse SD, Khoury MJ. Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10(7):489-95.
72. Khoury MJ. The case for a global human genome epidemiology initiative. Nat Genet. 2004;36(10):1027-8.