Evidence synthesis for medical decision making and the appropriate use of quality scores

Clinical Medicine and Research

Volumn 12, Issue 1-2, 2014, Pages 40-46

  Doi, Suhail A R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bias; Medical decision making; Meta analysis; Quality scores

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; METHODOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY EFFECT MODEL; QUALITY SCORE; RANDOM EFFECT MODEL; SCORING SYSTEM; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICAL MODEL; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PROCEDURES; STANDARDS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 84908615947     PISSN: 15394182     EISSN: 15546179     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3121/cmr.2013.1188     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O’Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L’Abbe KA. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:255–265.
2. Lohr KN. Rating the strength of scientific evidence: relevance for quality improvement programs. Int J Qual Health Care 2004;16:9–18.
3. Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Krebs Seida J, Klassen. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 2009;339:b4012
4. Greenland S, O’Rourke K. On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics 2001;2:463–471.
5. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609–613.
6. Doi SA, Thalib L. A quality-effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology 2008;19:94–100.
7. Berard A, Bravo G. Combining studies using effect sizes and quality scores: application to bone loss in postmenopausal women. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:801–807.
8. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054–1060.
9. Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie WJ. Adjustment of metaanalyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:1249–1256.
10. Greenland S. Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading: Reply to: re: a critical look at some popular analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:300–301.
11. Greenland S. Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:290–296.
12. Emerson JD, Burdick E, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1990;11:339–352.
13. Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JP, Wang C, Lau J. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2002;287:2973–2982.
14. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:982–989.
15. Thompson S, Ekelund U, Jebb S, Lindroos AK, Mander A, Sharp S, Turner R, Wilks D. A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of published observational studies. Int J Epidemiol 2011;40:765–777.
16. Turner RM, Spiegelhalter DJ, Smith GC, Thompson SG. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 2009;172:21–47.
17. Doi SA, Barendregt JJ, Onitilo AA. Methods for the bias adjustment of meta-analyses of published observational studies. J Eval Clin Pract 2013;19:653–657.
18. Doi SA, Barendregt JJ, Mozurkewich EL. Meta-analysis Of heterogenous clinical trials: an empirical example. Contemp Clin Trials 2011;32:288–298.
19. Overton RC. A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychological Methods 1998;3:354–379.
20. Peto R. Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials? Stat Med 1987;6:233–244.
21. Draper D. Assessment and propagation of model uncertainty. J R Statist Soc B 1995;57:45–97.
22. Draper D, Gaver DP, Goel PK, Greenhouse JB, Hedges LV, Morris CN, Tucker JR, Waternaux C. Combining information: statistical issues and opportunities for research. Washington, DC: National Research Council; 1993.
23. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG. Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex costeffectiveness modelling. Stat Med 2003;22:3687–3709.
24. da Costa BR, Hilfiker R, Egger M. PEDro’s bias: summary quality scores should not be used in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:75–77.
25. Doi SA, Barendregt JJ. Not PEDro’s bias: summary quality scores can be used in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:940–941.
26. Doi SA, Thalib L. An alternative quality adjustor for the quality effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology 2009;20:314
27. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177–188.
28. Burton A, Altman DG, Royston P, Holder RL. The design of simulation studies in medical statistics. Stat Med 2006;25:4279–4792.
29. Poole C, Greenland S. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:469–475.