Discordances originated by multiple meta-analyses on interventions for myocardial infarction: A systematic review

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 68, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 246-256

  Lucenteforte, Ersilia ^a   Moja, Lorenzo ^b,c   Pecoraro, Valentina ^b   Conti, Andrea A ^a   Conti, Antonio ^a   Crudeli, Elena ^a   Galli, Alessio ^c,d   Gensini, Gian Franco ^a   Minnelli, Martina ^a   Mugelli, Alessandro ^a   Proietti, Riccardo ^e,f   Shtylla, Jonida ^a   D'Amico, Roberto ^g   Parmelli, Elena ^g,h   Virgili, Gianni ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

^b IRCCS ISTITUTO ORTOPEDICO GALEAZZI   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^d FONDAZIONE IRCCS CA GRANDA OSPEDALE MAGGIORE POLICLINICO   (Italy)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^f MONTREAL GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA   (Italy)

^h Regione Lazio   (Italy)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular agents; Dissent and disputes; Evidence based medicine; Meta analysis; Myocardial infarction; Policy making

Indexed keywords

ANTICOAGULANT AGENT; ANTITHROMBOCYTIC AGENT; BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; DIPEPTIDYL CARBOXYPEPTIDASE INHIBITOR; FIBRINOGEN RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST;

ANGIOPLASTY; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; HEART INFARCTION; HEART MUSCLE REVASCULARIZATION; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SECONDARY PREVENTION; STENT; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); INTERVENTION STUDY; LITERATURE; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION;

HUMANS; INTERVENTION STUDIES; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84923634364     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.004     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. D. Moher, J. Tetzlaff, A.C. Tricco, M. Sampson, and D.G. Altman Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews Plos Med 4 3 2007 e78
2. K.C. Siontis, T. Hernandez-Boussard, and J.P. Ioannidis Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies BMJ 347 2013 f4501
3. E.M. Antman, J. Lau, B. Kupelnick, F. Mosteller, and T.C. Chalmers A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction JAMA 268 1992 240 248
4. A.D. Oxman, and G.H. Guyatt The science of reviewing research Ann N Y Acad Sci 703 1993 125 133 discussion 133-4
5. A.R. Jadad, D.J. Cook, and G.P. Browman A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews CMAJ 156 10 1997 1411 1416
6. M. Pladevall-Vila, G.L. Delclos, C. Varas, H. Guyer, J. Brugues-Tarradellas, and A. Anglaa-Arisa Controversy of oral contraceptives and risk of rheumatoid arthritis: meta-analysis of conflicting studies and review of conflicting meta-analyses with special emphasis on analysis of heterogeneity Am J Epidemiol 144 1996 1 14
7. K.H. Polderman, E.W. Ely, A.E. Badr, and A.R. Girbes Induced hypothermia in traumatic brain injury: considering the conflicting results of meta-analyses and moving forward Intensive Care Med 30 10 2004 1860 1864
8. P. Vavken, and R. Dorotka A systematic review of conflicting meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery Clin Orthop Relat Res 467 10 2009 2723 2735
9. G.G. Biondi-Zoccai, M. Lotrionte, A. Abbate, L. Testa, E. Remigi, and F. Burzotta Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study BMJ 332 2006 202 209
10. L. Moja, M.P. Fernandez del Rio, R. Banzi, C. Cusi, R. D'Amico, and A. Liberti Multiple systematic reviews: methods for assessing discordances of results Intern Emerg Med 7 6 2012 563 568
11. R.A. Henderson, N. O'Flynn Guideline Development Group Management of stable angina: summary of NICE guidance Heart 98 6 2012 500 507
12. R.W. Poolman, J.A. Abouali, H.J. Conter, and M. Bhandari Overlapping systematic reviews of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing hamstring autograft with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: why are they different? J Bone Joint Surg Am 89 2007 1542 1552
13. S. Yusuf, J. Wittes, J. Probstfield, and H.A. Tyroler Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials JAMA 266 1991 93 98
14. J.P. Higgins, S.G. Thompson, J.J. Deeks, and D.G. Altman Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses BMJ 327 2003 557 560
15. G.H. Guyatt, A.D. Oxman, R. Kunz, J. Brozek, P. Alonso-Coello, and D. Rind GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision J Clin Epidemiol 64 2011 1283 1293
16. J. Treadwell, S. Uhl, K. Tipton, S. Singh, L. Santaguida, and X. Sun Assessing Equivalence and Noninferiority. Methods Research Report (Prepared by the EPC Workgroup under Contract No. 290-2007-10063.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC045-EF 2012 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Rockville, MD
17. I. Ferreira-Gonzalez, J.W. Busse, D. Heels-Ansdell, V.M. Montori, E.A. Akl, and D.M. Bryant Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials BMJ 334 2007 786
18. L.C. Li, L. Moja, A. Romero, E.C. Sayre, and J.M. Grimshaw Nonrandomized quality improvement intervention trials might overstate the strength of causal inference of their findings J Clin Epidemiol 62 2009 959 966
19. N. Freemantle, M. Calvert, J. Wood, J. Eastaugh, and C. Griffin Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty? JAMA 289 2003 2554 2559
20. N. Freemantle, and M. Calvert Composite and surrogate outcomes in randomised controlled trials BMJ 334 2007 756 757
21. Higgins JPT, Green G.,(editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
22. G.H. Guyatt, A.D. Oxman, G.E. Vist, R. Kunz, Y. Falck-Ytter, and P. Alonso-Coello GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations BMJ 336 2008 924 926
23. M.J. Page, J.E. McKenzie, and A. Forbes Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews J Clin Epidemiol 66 2013 524 537
24. J.P. Ioannidis Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research JAMA 294 2005 218 228
25. A. Booth, M. Clarke, D. Ghersi, D. Moher, M. Petticrew, and L. Stewart An international registry of systematic-review protocols Lancet 377 2011 108 109
26. Williamson P, Altman D, Blazeby J Clarke M, Gargon E. Driving up the quality and relevance of research through the use of agreed core outcomes. J Health Serv Res Policy 17: 1-2.
27. K. Rahimi, A. Malhotra, A.P. Banning, and C. Jenkinson Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review BMJ 341 2010 c5707
28. K. Hopayian The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews BMJ 323 2001 681 684
29. J. Wen, Y. Ren, L. Wang, Y. Li, Y. Liu, and M. Zhou The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study J Clin Epidemiol 61 2008 770 775