A meta-epidemiological study to examine the association between bias and treatment effects in neonatal trials

Evidence-Based Child Health

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 1052-1059

  Bialy, Liza ^a   Vandermeer, Ben ^b   Lacaze Masmonteil, Thierry ^a   Dryden, Donna M ^b   Hartling, Lisa ^b  

^a CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Meta epidemiology; Neonatal; Randomized controlled trials; Reporting bias; Risk of bias

Indexed keywords

CORTICOSTEROID; IBUPROFEN; INDOMETACIN; SURFACTANT;

ARTICLE; CHILD; CHILD HEALTH; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; EFFECT SIZE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; MORTALITY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL BIAS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; NEONATOLOGY; NEWBORN; NEWBORN INTENSIVE CARE; PARENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH; RISK; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; INTENSIVE CARE, NEONATAL; NEONATOLOGY; ODDS RATIO; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PARENTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH REPORT; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84916593474     PISSN: 20404050     EISSN: 15576272     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ebch.1985     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 2002; 359: 614-618.
2. Sterne JAC, Jüni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in "meta-epidemiological" research. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1513-1524.
3. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2009.
4. Als-Nielsen B, Gluud LL, Green S. Methodological quality and treatment effects in randomized trials: a review of six empirical studies. 12th Cochrane Colloquium, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; October 2-6 2004.
5. Pildal J, Hróbjartsson A, Jørgensen KJ, Hilden J, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC. Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 2007; 36: 847-857.
6. Tierney JF, Stewart LA. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2005; 34: 79-87.
7. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beermann B. Evidence b(i)ased medicine-selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 2003; 326: 1171-1173.
8. Porta N, Bonet C, Cobo E. Discordance between reported intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 663-669.
9. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995; 16: 62-73.
10. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999; 282: 1054-1060.
11. West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SF, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) 2002; 47: 1-11.
12. Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y, Dryden DM, Hooton N, Krebs Seida J, et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 2009; 339: b4012.
13. Balk EM, Bonis PAL, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JPA, Wang C, et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2002; 287: 2973-2982.
14. 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: 1-76.
15. Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Minutes and recommendations of the Risk of Bias Tool Evaluation Meeting; 2010.
16. Hartling L, Bond K, Vandermeer B, Seida J, Dryden DM, Rowe BH. Applying the risk of bias tool in a systematic review of combination long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma. PLoS One 2011; 6: e17242.
17. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Baltogianni MS, Ioannidis JPA. Comparative effectiveness of medical interventions in adults versus children. J Pediatr 2010; 157: 322-330.e17.
18. Aziz A, Ohlsson A. Surfactant for pulmonary hemorrhage in neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD005254. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005254.pub2. Review.
19. Malviya M, Ohlsson A, Shah S. Surgical versus medical treatment with cyclooxygenase inhibitors for symptomatic patent ductus arteriosus in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 Jan 23;(1):CD003951. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003951.pub2. Review.
20. Duffett M, Choong K, Hartling L, Menon K, Thabane LCD. Randomized controlled trials in pediatric critical care: a scoping review. Crit Care 2013; 17: R256.
21. Hartling L, Hamm MP, Milne A, Vandermeer B, Santaguida PL, Ansari M, et al. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 973-981.
22. Hamm MP, Hartling L, Milne A, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Thomson D, et al. A descriptive analysis of a representative sample of pediatric randomized controlled trials published in 2007. BMC Pediatr 2010; 10: 96.
23. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Open Med 2010; 4: e60-e68.
24. Hahn S, Williamson PR, Hutton JL, Garner P, Flynn EV. Assessing the potential for bias in meta-analysis due to selective reporting of subgroup analyses within studies. Stat Med 2000; 19: 3325-3336.
25. Hahn S, Williamson PR, Hutton JL. Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee. J Eval Clin Pract 2002; 8: 353-359.
26. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan A-W, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 2008; 3: e3081.
27. Chan A-W, Krleza-Jerić K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 2004; 171: 735-740.
28. Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004; 291: 2457-2465.
29. Chan A-W, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 2005; 330: 753.
30. Von Elm E, Röllin A, Blümle A, Huwiler K, Witschi MEM. Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee. Swiss Med Wkly 2008; 138: 197-203.
31. Furukawa TA, Watanabe N, Omori IM, Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Association between unreported outcomes and effect size estimates in Cochrane meta-analyses. JAMA 2007; 297: 468-470.
32. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Juni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. Health Technol Assess 2012; 16: 1-82.
33. Hartling L, Bialy LM, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Johnson DW, Plint AC, et al. Epinephrine for bronchiolitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 Jun 15;(6):CD003123. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003123.pub3.