Dataset Information

Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons of competing interventions: meta-epidemiological study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate the agreement between direct and indirect comparisons of competing healthcare interventions.

Design

Meta-epidemiological study based on sample of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PubMed. Inclusion criteria Systematic reviews that provided sufficient data for both direct comparison and independent indirect comparisons of two interventions on the basis of a common comparator and in which the odds ratio could be used as the outcome statistic.

Main outcome measure

Inconsistency measured by the difference in the log odds ratio between the direct and indirect methods.

Results

The study included 112 independent trial networks (including 1552 trials with 478,775 patients in total) that allowed both direct and indirect comparison of two interventions. Indirect comparison had already been explicitly done in only 13 of the 85 Cochrane reviews included. The inconsistency between the direct and indirect comparison was statistically significant in 16 cases (14%, 95% confidence interval 9% to 22%). The statistically significant inconsistency was associated with fewer trials, subjectively assessed outcomes, and statistically significant effects of treatment in either direct or indirect comparisons. Owing to considerable inconsistency, many (14/39) of the statistically significant effects by direct comparison became non-significant when the direct and indirect estimates were combined.

Conclusions

Significant inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons may be more prevalent than previously observed. Direct and indirect estimates should be combined in mixed treatment comparisons only after adequate assessment of the consistency of the evidence.

SUBMITTER: Song F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3156578 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective:An increasing number of studies indicate that autophagy plays an important role in the pathogenesis of spinal cord injury, and that regulating autophagy can enhance recovery from spinal cord injury. However, the effect of regulating autophagy and whether autophagy is detrimental or beneficial after spinal cord injury remain unclear. Therefore, in this study we evaluated the effects of autophagy regulation on spinal cord injury in rats by direct and indirect comparison, in an effort to provide a basis for further research. Data source:Relevant literature published from inception to February 1, 2018 were included by searching Wanfang, CNKI, Web of Science, MEDLINE (OvidSP), PubMed and Google Scholar in English and Chinese. The keywords included "autophagy", "spinal cord injury", and "rat". Data selection:The literature included in vivo experimental studies on autophagy regulation in the treatment of spinal cord injury (including intervention pre- and post-spinal cord injury). Meta-analyses were conducted at different time points to compare the therapeutic effects of promoting or inhibiting autophagy, and subgroup analyses were also conducted. Outcome measure:Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scores. Results:Of the 622 studies, 33 studies of median quality were included in the analyses. Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scores were higher at 1 day (MD = 1.80, 95% CI: 0.81-2.79, P = 0.0004), 3 days (MD = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.13, P < 0.00001), 1 week (MD = 2.39, 95% CI: 1.85-2.92, P < 0.00001), 2 weeks (MD = 3.26, 95% CI: 2.40-4.13, P < 0.00001), 3 weeks (MD = 3.13, 95% CI: 2.51-3.75, P < 0.00001) and 4 weeks (MD = 3.18, 95% CI: 2.43-3.92, P < 0.00001) after spinal cord injury with upregulation of autophagy compared with the control group (drug solvent control, such as saline group). Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scores were higher at 1 day (MD = 6.48, 95% CI: 5.83-7.13, P < 0.00001), 2 weeks (MD = 2.43, 95% CI: 0.79-4.07, P = 0.004), 3 weeks (MD = 2.96, 95% CI: 0.09-5.84, P = 0.04) and 4 weeks (MD = 4.41, 95% CI: 1.08-7.75, P = 0.01) after spinal cord injury with downregulation of autophagy compared with the control group. Indirect comparison of upregulation and downregulation of autophagy showed no differences in Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan scores at 1 day (MD = -4.68, 95% CI: -5.840 to -3.496, P = 0.94644), 3 days (MD = -0.28, 95% CI: -2.231-1.671, P = 0.99448), 1 week (MD = 1.83, 95% CI: 0.0076-3.584, P = 0.94588), 2 weeks (MD = 0.81, 95% CI: -0.850-2.470, P = 0.93055), 3 weeks (MD = 0.17, 95% CI: -2.771-3.111, P = 0.99546) or 4 weeks (MD = -1.23, 95% CI: -4.647-2.187, P = 0.98264) compared with the control group. Conclusion:Regulation of autophagy improves neurological function, whether it is upregulated or downregulated. There was no difference between upregulation and downregulation of autophagy in the treatment of spinal cord injury. The variability in results among the studies may be associated with differences in research methods, the lack of clearly defined autophagy characteristics after spinal cord injury, and the limited autophagy monitoring techniques. Thus, methods should be standardized, and the dynamic regulation of autophagy should be examined in future studies.

Project description:Weight loss can reduce the health risks associated with being overweight or obese. However, the most effective method of weight loss remains unclear. Some programs emphasize physical activity, others diet, but existing evidence is mixed as to whether these are more effective individually or in combination. We aimed to examine the clinical effectiveness of combined behavioral weight management programs (BWMPs) targeting weight loss in comparison to single component programs, using within study comparisons. We included randomized controlled trials of combined BWMPs compared with diet-only or physical activity-only programs with at least 12 months of follow-up, conducted in overweight and obese adults (body mass index ≥25). Systematic searches of nine databases were run and two reviewers extracted data independently. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for mean difference in weight change at 3 to 6 months and 12 to 18 months using a baseline observation carried forward approach for combined BWMPs vs diet-only BWMPs and combined BWMPs vs physical activity-only BWMPs. In total, eight studies were included, representing 1,022 participants, the majority of whom were women. Six studies met the inclusion criteria for combined BWMP vs diet-only. Pooled results showed no significant difference in weight loss from baseline or at 3 to 6 months between the BWMPs and diet-only arms (-0.62 kg; 95% CI -1.67 to 0.44). However, at 12 months, a significantly greater weight-loss was detected in the combined BWMPs (-1.72 kg; 95% CI -2.80 to -0.64). Five studies met the inclusion criteria for combined BWMP vs physical activity-only. Pooled results showed significantly greater weight loss in the combined BWMPs at 3 to 6 months (-5.33 kg; 95% CI -7.61 to -3.04) and 12 to 18 months (-6.29 kg; 95% CI -7.33 to -5.25). Weight loss is similar in the short-term for diet-only and combined BWMPs but in the longer-term weight loss is increased when diet and physical activity are combined. Programs based on physical activity alone are less effective than combined BWMPs in both the short and long term.