Dataset Information

Assessing bias in osteoarthritis trials included in Cochrane reviews: protocol for a meta-epidemiological study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The validity of systematic reviews and meta-analysis depends on methodological quality and unbiased dissemination of trials. Our objective is to evaluate the association of estimates of treatment effects with different bias-related study characteristics in meta-analyses of interventions used for treating pain in osteoarthritis (OA). From the findings, we hope to consolidate guidance on interpreting OA trials in systematic reviews based on empirical evidence from Cochrane reviews.

Methods and analysis

Only systematic reviews that compare experimental interventions with sham, placebo or no intervention control will be considered eligible. Bias will be assessed with the risk of bias tool, used according to the Cochrane Collaboration's recommendations. Furthermore, center status, trial size and funding will be assessed. The primary outcome (pain) will be abstracted from the first appearing forest plot for overall pain in the Cochrane review. Treatment effect sizes will be expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs), where the difference in mean values available from the forest plots is divided by the pooled SD. To empirically assess the risk of bias in treatment benefits, we will perform stratified analyses of the trials from the included meta-analyses and assess the interaction between trial characteristics and treatment effect. A relevant study-level covariate is defined as one that decreases the between-study variance (τ(2), estimated as Tau-squared) as a consequence of inclusion in the mixed effects statistical model.

Ethics and dissemination

Meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials provide the most reliable basis for treatment of patients with OA, but the actual impact of bias is unclear. This study will systematically examine the methodological quality in OA Cochrane reviews and explore the effect estimates behind possible bias. Since our study does not collect primary data, no formal ethical assessment and informed consent are required.

Trial registration number

PROSPERO (CRD42013006924).

SUBMITTER: Hansen JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4187994 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) has defined core sets for (i) symptom-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SM-ARD), (ii) clinical record keeping, and (iii) disease-controlling anti-rheumatic therapy (DC-ART). These include the following domains for all three core sets: "physical function," "pain," "spinal mobility," "spinal stiffness," and "patient's global assessment" (PGA). The core set for clinical record keeping further includes the domains "peripheral joints/entheses" and "acute phase reactants," and the core set for DC-ART further includes the domains "fatigue" and "spine radiographs/hip radiographs." The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) endorsed the core sets in 1998.Using empirical evidence from axSpA trials, we investigated the efficacy (i.e., net benefit) according to the ASAS/OMERACT core outcome set for axSpA across all interventions tested in trials included in subsequent Cochrane reviews. For all continuous scales, we combined data using the standardized mean difference (SMD) to meta-analyze outcomes involving the same domains. Also, through meta-regression analysis, we examined the effect of the separate SMD measures (independent variables) on the primary endpoint (log [OR], dependent variable) across all trials.Based on 11 eligible Cochrane reviews, from these, 85 articles were screened; we included 43 trials with 63 randomized comparisons. Mean (SD) number of ASAS/OMERACT core outcome domains measured for SM-ARD/physical therapy trials was 4.2 (1.7). Six trials assessed all proposed domains. Mean (SD) for number of core outcome domains for DC-ART trials was 5.8 (1.7). No trials assessed all nine domains. Eight trials (16%) were judged to have inadequate (i.e., high risk of) selective outcome reporting bias. The most responsible core domains for achieving success in meeting the primary objective per trial were pain, OR (95% CI) 5.19 (2.28, 11.77), and PGA, OR (95% CI) 1.87 (1.14, 3.07). In conclusion, selective outcome reporting (and "missing data") should be reduced by encouraging the use of the endorsed ASAS/OMERACT outcome domains in clinical trials. Overall outcome reporting was good for SM-ARD/physical therapy trials and poor for DC-ART trials. Our findings suggest that both PGA and pain provide a valuable holistic construct for the assessment of improvement beyond more objective measures of spinal inflammation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is growing interest in evaluating differences in healthcare interventions across routinely collected demographic characteristics. However, individual subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials are often not prespecified, adjusted for multiple testing, or conducted using the appropriate statistical test for interaction, and therefore frequently lack credibility. Meta-analyses can be used to examine the validity of potential subgroup differences by collating evidence across trials. Here, we characterize the conduct and clinical translation of age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews. METHODS:For a random sample of 928 Cochrane intervention reviews of randomized trials, we determined how often subgroup analyses of age are reported, how often these analyses have a P?<?0.05 from formal interaction testing, how frequently subgroup differences first observed in an individual trial are later corroborated by other trials in the same meta-analysis, and how often statistically significant results are included in commonly used clinical management resources (BMJ Best Practice, UpToDate, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Google Scholar, and Google search). RESULTS:Among 928 Cochrane intervention reviews, 189 (20.4%) included plans to conduct age-treatment subgroup analyses. The vast majority (162 of 189, 85.7%) of the planned analyses were not conducted, commonly because of insufficient trial data. There were 22 reviews that conducted their planned age-treatment subgroup analyses, and another 3 reviews appeared to perform unplanned age-treatment subgroup analyses. These 25 (25 of 928, 2.7%) reviews conducted a total of 97 age-treatment subgroup analyses, of which 65 analyses (in 20 reviews) had non-overlapping subgroup levels. Among the 65 age-treatment subgroup analyses, 14 (21.5%) did not report any formal interaction testing. Seven (10.8%) reported P?<?0.05 from formal age-treatment interaction testing; however, none of these seven analyses were in reviews that discussed the potential biological rationale or clinical significance of the subgroup findings or had results that were included in common clinical practice resources. CONCLUSION:Age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews were frequently planned but rarely conducted, and implications of detected interactions were not discussed in the reviews or mentioned in common clinical resources. When subgroup analyses are performed, authors should report the findings, compare the results to previous studies, and outline any potential impact on clinical care.

Project description:BackgroundClinical decisions are made based on Cochrane reviews, but the implementation of results of evidence syntheses such as Cochrane reviews is problematic if the evidence is not prepared consistently. All systematic reviews should assess the risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, and in Cochrane reviews, this is done by using Cochrane RoB tool. However, the tool is not necessarily applied according to the instructions. In this study, we aimed to determine the types of bias and their corresponding judgements noted in the 'other bias' domain of Cochrane RoB tool.MethodsWe analyzed Cochrane reviews that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and extracted data regarding 'other bias' from the RoB table and accompanying support for the judgment. We categorized different types of other bias.ResultsWe analyzed 768 Cochrane reviews that included 11,369 RCTs. There were 602 (78%) Cochrane reviews that had 'other bias' domain in the RoB tool, and they included a total of 7811 RCTs. In the RoB table of 337 Cochrane reviews for at least one of the included trials it was indicated that no other bias was found and supporting explanations were inconsistently judged as low, unclear or high RoB. In the 524 Cochrane reviews that described various sources of other bias, there were 5762 individual types of explanations which we categorized into 31 groups. The judgments of the same supporting explanations were highly inconsistent. We found numerous other inconsistencies in reporting of sources of other bias in Cochrane reviews.ConclusionCochrane authors mention a wide range of sources of other bias in the RoB tool and they inconsistently judge the same supporting explanations. Inconsistency in appraising risk of other bias hinders reliability and comparability of Cochrane systematic reviews. Discrepant and erroneous judgments of bias in evidence synthesis may hinder implementation of evidence in routine clinical practice and reduce confidence in otherwise trustworthy sources of information. These results can help authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to gain insight into various sources of other bias that can be found in trials, and also to help them avoid mistakes that were recognized in published Cochrane reviews.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Assess the frequency and reasons for disagreements in risk of bias assessments for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in more than one Cochrane review. DESIGN:Research on research study, using cross-sectional design. DATA SOURCES:2796 Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014. DATA SELECTION:RCTs included in more than one review. DATA EXTRACTION:Risk of bias assessment and support for judgement for five key risk of bias items. DATA SYNTHESIS:For each item, we compared risk of bias assessment made in each review and calculated proportion of agreement. Two reviewers independently analysed 50% of all disagreements by comparing support for each judgement with information from study report to evaluate whether disagreements were related to a difference in information (eg, contact the study author) or a difference in interpretation (same support for judgement but different interpretation). They also identified main reasons for different interpretation. RESULTS:1604 RCTs were included in more than one review. Proportion of agreement ranged from 57% (770/1348 trials) for incomplete outcome data to 81% for random sequence generation (1193/1466). Most common source of disagreement was difference in interpretation of the same information, ranging from 65% (88/136) for random sequence generation to 90% (56/62) for blinding of participants and personnel. Access to different information explained 32/136 (24%) disagreements for random sequence generation and 38/205 (19%) for allocation concealment. Disagreements related to difference in interpretation were frequently related to incomplete or unclear reporting in the study report (83% of disagreements related to different interpretation for random sequence generation). CONCLUSIONS:Risk of bias judgements of RCTs included in more than one Cochrane review differed substantially. Most disagreements were related to a difference in interpretation of an incomplete or unclear description in the study report. A clearer guidance on common causes of incomplete information may improve agreement.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Information on subgroup assessments in systematic reviews (SR) of atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. This review aims to describe subgroup analyses in AF SRs to inform the design of SRs and randomized trials as well as clinical practice. METHODS:We conducted a cross sectional meta-epidemiological study of Cochrane AF reviews by searching AF (including variants) in the title, abstract, or keyword field without date or language restrictions (Issue 9; September 2018). Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics to summarize frequency of subgroups pre-specified and conducted and report credibility of subgroup effects claimed. RESULTS:Of 39 Cochrane reviews identified, 17 met inclusion criteria (including 168 reports of 127 randomized trials) and the majority (16; 94.1%) conducted meta-analysis of outcomes. Most (13; 76.5%) planned pre-specified subgroup analyses; 7 of which (41.2%) conducted subgroups. In these 7 reviews, 56 subgroups were planned, 17 (30.4%) conducted and 6 (10.7%) yielded subgroup effects. Variables such as co-morbid disease, stroke risk factors, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, age, race, and sex represented 44% (24 subgroups) of all planned subgroups (8 conducted; 14.3%); however, information on covariate selection was lacking. Overall, more subgroups were planned than conducted (mean difference (95% CI) 2.3 (1.2-3.5, p?<?0.001)). Of all subgroups conducted, anticoagulant characteristics comprised a third of all subgroup effects (n?=?5, 35.7%). The credibility of subgroups identified (n?=?14) was assessed and less than half (43%) represented one of a small number of pre-specified hypothesis and rarely were effects seen within studies (7%). Of 5 reviews that reported subgroup effects, only 3 discussed subgroup effects as part of the overall conclusions; none discussed credibility of subgroup effects. CONCLUSIONS:This meta-epidemiological review of a subset of Cochrane AF reviews suggests that planning and reporting of subgroup analyses in AF reviews can be improved to better inform clinical management. Most pre-specified subgroup analyses were not performed, important variables (such as stroke, bleeding risk, and other comorbidities) were rarely examined and credibility of subgroup effects claimed was low. Future reviews should aim to identify important subgroups in their protocols and use recommended approaches to test subgroup effects in order to better support clinical decision-making.