Comparison of two independent systematic reviews of trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2): The Yale Open Data Access Medtronic Project

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Low, Jeffrey ^a   Ross, Joseph S ^a,b,c,d   Ritchie, Jessica D ^b   Gross, Cary P ^a,c   Lehman, Richard ^e   Lin, Haiqun ^b,d   Fu, Rongwei ^f   Stewart, Lesley A ^g   Krumholz, Harlan M ^a,b,c,d  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b YALE NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION   (United States)

^d YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^f OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Data interpretation; Data sharing; Meta analysis; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

RECOMBINANT BONE MORPHOGENETIC PROTEIN 2; BONE MORPHOGENETIC PROTEIN 2; RECOMBINANT HUMAN BONE MORPHOGENETIC PROTEIN-2; RECOMBINANT PROTEIN; TRANSFORMING GROWTH FACTOR BETA;

ARTICLE; BACKACHE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPARATIVE STUDY; FUNDING; HUMAN; LEG PAIN; MALIGNANT NEOPLASM; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SHORT FORM 36; SPINE FUSION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); LITERATURE; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BONE MORPHOGENETIC PROTEIN 2; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; RISK FACTORS; TRANSFORMING GROWTH FACTOR BETA; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85012892466     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0422-x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA. 2005;294(2):218-28.
2. Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):76-97.
3. Wang JG, Staessen JA, Franklin SS, Fagard R, Gueyffier F. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure lowering as determinants of cardiovascular outcome. Hypertension. 2005;45(5):907-13.
4. Stewart LA, Parmar MK. Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? Lancet. 1993;341(8842):418-22.
5. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Staessen JA, Wang J, Gueyffier F, Thijs L, Boutitie F. Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data. Stat Med. 2008;27(11):1870-93.
6. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ. 2010;340:c221.
7. Jeng GT, Scott JR, Burmeister LF. A comparison of meta-analytic results using literature vs individual patient data. Paternal cell immunization for recurrent miscarriage. JAMA. 1995;274(10):830-6.
8. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA, Feldman HI. Anti-lymphocyte antibody induction therapy study G: 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(3):371-87.
9. McCormack K, Grant A, Scott N, Collaboration EUHT. Value of updating a systematic review in surgery using individual patient data. Br J Surg. 2004;91(4):495-9.
10. Ioannidis JP. Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012;7(6):645-54.
11. Final NIH statement on sharing research data [ http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/ ]. Accessed 8 Apr 2015.
12. NOT-OD-15-019: NIH request for public comments on the draft NIH policy on dissemination of NIH-funded clinical trial information [ http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-019.html ]. Accessed 8 Apr 2015.
13. Data sharing commitments enhance research and scientific knowledge, advance patient care and improve public health [ http://www.phrma.org/Joint-EFPIA-PhRMA-Principles-for-Responsible-Clinical-Trial-Data-Sharing-Become-Effective-Today ]. Accessed 8 Apr 2015.
14. Nisen P, Rockhold F. Access to patient-level data from GlaxoSmithKline clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(5):475-8.
15. Johnson & Johnson announces clinical trial data sharing agreement with Yale School of Medicine [ https://www.jnj.com/media-center/press-releases/johnson-johnson-announces-clinical-trial-data-sharing-agreement-with-yale-school-of-medicine ]. Accessed 8 Apr 2015.
16. Bristol-Myers Squibb expands access to clinical trial data through collaboration with academic research institute [ http://news.bms.com/press-release/bristol-myers-squibb-expands-access-clinical-trial-data-through-collaboration-academic ]. Accessed 8 Apr 2015.
17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264-9. W264.
18. Thompson R, Bandera E, Burley V, Cade J, Forman D, Freudenheim J, Greenwood D, Jacobs D, Kalliecharan R, Kushi L, et al. Reproducibility of systematic literature reviews on food, nutrition, physical activity and endometrial cancer. Public Health Nutr. 2008;11(10):1006-14.
19. Anonymous. Worldwide collaborative observational study and meta-analysis on allogenic leukocyte immunotherapy for recurrent spontaneous abortion. Recurrent Miscarriage Immunotherapy Trialists Group. [Erratum appears in Am J Reprod Immunol 1994 Oct;32(3):255]. Am J Reprod Immunol. 1994;32(2):55-72.
20. Pladevall-Vila M, Delclos GL, Varas C, Guyer H, Brugues-Tarradellas J, Anglada-Arisa A. 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. 1996;144(1):1-14.
21. Hopayian K, Mugford M. Conflicting conclusions from two systematic reviews of epidural steroid injections for sciatica: which evidence should general practitioners heed? Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49(438):57-61.
22. Anonymous. Meta-analysis under scrutiny. Lancet. 1997;350(9079):675.
23. Naylor CD. Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):617-9.
24. Petticrew M, Kennedy SC. Detecting the effects of thromboprophylaxis: the case of the rogue reviews. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):665-8.
25. Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ. 2012;344:d7202.
26. Fu R, Selph S, McDonagh M, Peterson K, Tiwari A, Chou R, Helfand M. Effectiveness and Harms of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 in Spine Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:890-902.
27. Simmonds MC, Brown JV, Heirs MK, Higgins JP, Mannion RJ, Rodgers MA, Stewart LA. Safety and effectiveness of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for spinal fusion: a meta-analysis of individual-participant data. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(12):877-89.
28. Fu XH, Li MN, Zheng GH, Le YQ, Wang L. Waste recombinant DNA: effectiveness of thermo-treatment to manage potential gene pollution. Environ Pollut. 2009;157(8-9):2536-41.
29. Fu R, Selph S, McDonagh M, Peterson K, Tiwari A, Chou R, Helfand M. Effectiveness and harms of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in spine fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(12):890-902.
30. Krumholz HM, Ross JS. A model for dissemination and independent analysis of industry data. JAMA. 2011;306(14):1593-4.
31. Medtronic-systematic reviews [ http://yoda.yale.edu/medtronic-systematic-reviews ]. Accessed 8 Apr 2015.
32. Medtronic-available data [ http://yoda.yale.edu/medtronicrhbmp-2 ]. Accessed 8 Apr 2015.
33. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M, Campbell MJ, Puno RM, Johnson JR, Dimar JR. RhBMP-2 versus iliac crest bone graft for lumbar spine fusion: a randomized, controlled trial in patients over sixty years of age. Spine. 2008;33(26):2843-9.
34. Resnick D, Bozic KJ. Meta-analysis of trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2: what should spine surgeons and their patients do with this information? Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(12):912-3.
35. Riew KD, Carragee EJ. Commentary: despite reports of catastrophic complications, why recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 should be available for use in anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine J. 2012;12(10):900-1.
36. Cahill KS, Chi JH, Day A, Claus EB. Prevalence, complications, and hospital charges associated with use of bone-morphogenetic proteins in spinal fusion procedures. JAMA. 2009;302(1):58-66.
37. Laine C, Guallar E, Mulrow C, Taichman DB, Cornell JE, Cotton D, Griswold ME, Localio AR, Meibohm AR, Stack CB, et al. Closing in on the truth about recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2: evidence synthesis, data sharing, peer review, and reproducible research. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(12):916-8.
38. Hsu WK. Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in spine surgery. JBJS Rev. 2014;2(6).
39. Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK. A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. The Spine Journal. 2011;11(6):471-91.