Sensitivity subgroup analysis based on single-center vs. multi-center trial status when interpreting meta-analyses pooled estimates: The logical way forward

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 74, Issue , 2016, Pages 80-92

  Alexander, Paul E ^a   Bonner, Ashley J ^a   Agarwal, Arnav ^a,c   Li, Shelly Anne ^a   Hariharan, Abishek ^a   Izhar, Zain ^a   Bhatnagar, Neera ^a   Alba, Carolina ^a,d   Akl, Elie A ^e   Fei, Yutong ^a,f   Guyatt, Gordon H ^a   Beyene, Joseph ^a,b  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^e AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

^f BEIJING UNIVERSITY OF CHINESE MEDICINE   (China)

Author keywords

Heterogeneity; Mean difference in SMD; Meta analyses; Metabias; Multi center; Ratio of odds ratio; Single center

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER SURVIVAL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; DATA BASE; EFFECT SIZE; FUNDING; HUMAN; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; CLINICAL TRIAL; EPIDEMIOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; ODDS RATIO; PROCEDURES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; ODDS RATIO; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84974644137     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.027     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. H. Balshem, M. Helfand, H.J. Schünemann, A.D. Oxman, R. Kunz, J. Brozek, and et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence J Clin Epidemiol 64 2011 401 406
2. G.H. Guyatt, A.D. Oxman, R. Kunz, J. Woodcock, J. Brozek, M. Helfand, et al. GRADE Working Group GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence-inconsistency J Clin Epidemiol 2011 1294 1302
3. J. Savović, H. Jones, D. Altman, R. Harris, P. Juni, J. Pildal, and et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies Health Technol Assess 16 2012 1 82
4. L. Wood, M. Egger, L.L. Gluud, K.F. Schulz, P. Jüni, D.G. Altman, and et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study BMJ 336 2008 601 605
5. J.P. Higgins, D.G. Altman, P.C. Gøtzsche, P. Jüni, D. Moher, A.D. Oxman, et al. Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group, The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343;d5928.
6. The Cochrane Collaboration. 8.2.1 'Bias' and 'risk of bias'. Available at http://www.cochrane.org/handbook/821-%E2%80%98bias%E2%80%99-and-%E2%80%98risk-bias%E2%80%99. Accessed April 21, 2013.
7. M.S. Corbett, J.P.T. Higgins, and N.F. Woolacott Assessing baseline imbalance in randomised trials: implications for the Cochrane risk of bias tool Res Synth Methods 5 2014 79 85
8. S. Goodman, and K. Dickersin Metabias: a challenge for comparative effectiveness research Ann Intern Med 155 2011 61 62
9. T. Chalmers, C. Frank, and D. Reitman Minimising the three stages of publication bias JAMA 263 1990 1392 1395
10. A.W. Chan, and D.G. Altman Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors BMJ 330 2005 753
11. The Cochrane Collaboration. 8.13 Selective outcome reporting. Available at http://www.cochrane.org/handbook/813-selective-outcome-reporting. Accessed April 22, 2013.
12. A. Dechartres, I. Boutron, L. Trinquart, P. Charles, and P. Ravaud Single-center trials show larger treatment effects than multi-center trials: evidence from a meta-epidemiologic study Ann Intern Med 155 2011 39 51
13. S. Unverzagt, R. Prondzinsky, and F. Peinemann Single-center trials tend to provide larger treatment effects than multi-center trials: a systematic review J Clin Epidemiol 66 2013 1271 1280
14. J. Savović, H.E. Jones, D.G. Altman, R.J. Harris, P. Jüni, J. Pildal, and et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials Ann Intern Med 157 2012 429 438
15. A. Bafeta, A. Dechartres, L. Trinquart, A. Yavchitz, I. Boutron, and P. Ravaud Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study BMJ 344 2012 e813
16. G.F. Borm, O. Lemmers, J. Fransen, and R. Donders The evidence provided by a single trial is less reliable than its statistical analysis suggests J Clin Epidemiol 2009 711 715.e1
17. J.R. Landis, and G.G. Koch The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data Biometrics 33 1977 159 174
18. E.A. Akl, M. Briel, J.J. You, F. Lamontagne, A. Gangji, T. Cukierman-Yaffe, and et al. LOST to follow-up Information in Trials (LOST-IT): a protocol on the potential impact Trials 10 2009 40
19. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 4.2.5. Available at http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/hbook.htm. Updated May 2005. Accessed November 29, 2013.
20. J.A. Sterne, P. Jüni, K.F. Schulz, D.G. Altman, C. Bartlett, and M. Egger Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research Stat Med 21 2002 1513 1524
21. 9.6.4 Meta-regression. Available at http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter-9/9-6-4-meta-regression.htm. Accessed April 20, 2013.
22. M.J. Sweeting, A.J. Sutton, and P.C. Lambert What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data Stat Med 23 2004 1351 1375
23. S.S. Sankey, L.A. Weissfeld, M.J. Fine, and W. Kapoor An assessment of the use of the continuity correction for sparse data in metaanalysis Commun Statistics-Simulation Comput 25 1996 1031 1056
24. D.J. Cook, L.G. Witt, R.J. Cook, and G.H. Guyatt Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the critically ill: a meta-analysis Am J Med 91 1991 519 527
25. R.J. Grissom, and J.J. Kim Effect sizes for research: a broad practical approach 2005 Erlbaum Mahwah, NJ
26. 9.5.4 Incorporating heterogeneity into random-effects models. Available at http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/cochrane/handbook500/chapter-9/9-5-4-incorporating-heterogeneity-into-random-effects-models.htm. Accessed April 22, 2013.
27. S.G. Moreno, A.J. Sutton, A.E. Ades, T.D. Stanley, K.R. Abrams, J.L. Peters, and et al. Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study BMC Med Res Methodol 9 2009 2
28. Meta-regression. Chapter 20, page 2. Available at http://www.meta-analysis.com/downloads/Meta-analysis%20Meta%20regression.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2015.
29. The R Project for Statistical Computing. R Software. Available at http://www.r-project.org/. Accessed March 20, 2014.
30. J.A. Sterne, M. Egger, and G.D. Smith Systematic reviews in healthcare: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analyses BMJ 323 2001 101 105
31. J.A.C. Sterne, D. Gavaghan, and M. Egger Publication and related bias in meta-analyses: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature J Clin Epidemiol 53 2000 1119 1129
32. A. Dechartres, L. Trinquart, I. Boutron, and P. Ravaud Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study BMJ 346 2013 f2304
33. K.P. Lee, M. Schotland, P. Bacchetti, and L.A. Bero Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles JAMA 287 2002 2805 2808
34. Guyatt G, Busse J. Methods commentary: risk of bias in randomized trials 1. Available at http://distillercer.com/resources/methodological-resources/risk-of-bias-commentary/. Accessed May 18, 2015.