Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: Principles and pitfalls

European Heart Journal

Volumn 35, Issue 47, 2014, Pages 3336-3345

  Da Costa, Bruno R ^a,b   Jüni, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Fixed effect; Heterogeneity; Meta analysis; Random effects; Research synthesis; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DATA EXTRACTION; ECOLOGICAL FALLACY; FOREST PLOT; FUNNEL PLOT; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PATIENT CODING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS; STATISTICAL HETEROGENEITY; STRATIFIED SAMPLE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); LITERATURE; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATIONS; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84925587640     PISSN: 0195668X     EISSN: 15229645     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu424     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Juni P, Egger M. PRISMAtic reporting of systematic reviews and meta-Analyses. Lancet 2009;374:1221-1223.
2. Egger M, SmithGD, Phillips AN. Meta-Analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 1997; 315:1533-1537.
3. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-Analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700.
4. Van derWees P, QaseemA, Kaila M, Ollenschlaeger G, Rosenfeld R. Prospective systematic reviewregistration: perspective from the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N). Syst Rev 2012;1:3.
5. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility. Syst Rev 2013;2:4.
6. Smith BJ, Darzins PJ, Quinn M, Heller RF. Modern methods of searching the medical literature. Med J Aust 1992;157:603-611.
7. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Searching for studies. 2011. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. The Cochrane Collaboration. www.cochrane-handbook.org.
8. Kalesan B, Pilgrim T, Heinimann K, Raber L, Stefanini GG, Valgimigli M, da Costa BR, Mach F, Luscher TF, Meier B, Windecker S, Juni P. Comparison of drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2012;33:977-987.
9. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG, Gluud C, Martin RM, Wood AJ, Sterne JA. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2008;336:601-605.
10. Nuesch E, Reichenbach S, Trelle S, Rutjes AW, Liewald K, Sterchi R, Altman DG, Juni P. The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiologic study. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:1633-1641.
11. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, AltmanDG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-412.
12. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42-46.
13. Jadad AR, MooreRA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Greenland S. Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:300-301.
18. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
19. Nuesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Rutjes AW, Tschannen B, Altman DG, Egger M, Juni P. Small study effects inmeta-Analyses of osteoarthritis trials:meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2010;341:c3515.
20. ISIS-4: a randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58,050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. ISIS-4 (Fourth International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Lancet 1995;345:669-685.
21. Nuesch E, Juni P. Commentary: which meta-Analyses are conclusive? Int J Epidemiol 2009;38:298-303.
22. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-Analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7: 177-188.
23. Cornell JE, Mulrow CD, Localio R, Stack CB, Meibohm AR, Guallar E, Goodman SN. Random-effects meta-Analysis of inconsistent effects: a time for change. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:267-270.
24. Smeeth L, Haines A, Ebrahim S. Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-Analyses-sometimes informative, usually misleading. BMJ 1999;318:1548-1551.
25. Deeks JJ. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-Analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 2002;21:1575-1600.
26. O'Farrell N, Egger M. Circumcision in men and the prevention of HIV infection: a 'meta-Analysis' revisited. Int J STD AIDS 2000;11:137-142.
27. Altman DG, Deeks JJ. Meta-Analysis, Simpson's paradox, and the number needed to treat. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002;2:3.
28. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA, Feldman HI. Individual patient-versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med 2002;21:371-387.
29. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-Analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ 2010;340:c221.
30. Stewart LA, Tierney JF, Clarke M. Chapter 18: reviews of individual patient data. 2011. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Version 5.1.0. www.cochrane-handbook.org.
31. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Montori V, Akl EA, Djulbegovic B, Falck-Ytter Y, Norris SL, Williams JW Jr., Atkins D, Meerpohl J, Schunemann HJ. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence-study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:407-415.
32. Rucker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, Schumacher M. Undue reliance on I(2) in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:79.
33. Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-Analysis. Potentials and promise. BMJ 1997;315: 1371-1374.
34. Bagshaw SM, GhaliWA. Acetylcysteine for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy after intravascular angiography: a systematic review and meta-Analysis. BMC Med 2004;2:38.
35. Schriger DL, Altman DG, Vetter JA, Heafner T, Moher D. Forest plots in reports of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study reviewing current practice. Int J Epidemiol 2010;39:421-429.
36. Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-Analysis should be investigated. BMJ 1994;309:1351-1355.
37. Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Howshould meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 2002;21:1559-1573.
38. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-Analyses. 2011. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Version 5.1.0. www.cochrane-handbook.org.
39. Senn S. Importance of trends in the interpretation of an overall odds ratio in the meta-Analysis of clinical trials. Stat Med 1994;13:293-296.
40. Sharp SJ, Thompson SG, Altman DG. The relation between treatment benefit and underlying risk in meta-Analysis. BMJ 1996;313:735-738.
41. Bland JM, Altman DG. Some examples of regression towards the mean. BMJ 1994; 309:780.
42. Roques F, Michel P, Goldstone AR, Nashef SA. The logistic EuroSCORE. Eur Heart J 2003;24:881-882.
43. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-Analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-634.
44. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-Analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 2006;25: 3443-3457.
45. EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) Network. http://www.equator-network.org/(27 October 2014).