Dataset Information

Effect of Risk of Bias on the Effect Size of Meta-Analytic Estimates in Randomized Controlled Trials in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Risk of bias (ROB) may threaten the internal validity of a clinical trial by distorting the magnitude of treatment effect estimates, although some conflicting information on this assumption exists.

Objective

The objective of this study was evaluate the effect of ROB on the magnitude of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology and implant dentistry.

Methods

A search for Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs), including meta-analyses of RCTs published in periodontology and implant dentistry fields, was performed in the Cochrane Library in September 2014. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed by grouping RCTs with different levels of ROBs in three domains (sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding of outcome assessment). To increase power and precision, only SRs with meta-analyses including at least 10 RCTs were included. Meta-regression was performed to investigate the association between ROB characteristics and the magnitudes of intervention effects in the meta-analyses.

Results

Of the 24 initially screened SRs, 21 SRs were excluded because they did not include at least 10 RCTs in the meta-analyses. Three SRs (two from periodontology field) generated information for conducting 27 meta-analyses. Meta-regression did not reveal significant differences in the relationship of the ROB level with the size of treatment effect estimates, although a trend for inflated estimates was observed in domains with unclear ROBs.

Conclusion

In this sample of RCTs, high and (mainly) unclear risks of selection and detection biases did not seem to influence the size of treatment effect estimates, although several confounders might have influenced the strength of the association.

SUBMITTER: Faggion CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4589402 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Risk of Bias on the Effect Size of Meta-Analytic Estimates in Randomized Controlled Trials in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry.

Faggion Clovis Mariano CM Wu Yun-Chun YC Scheidgen Moritz M Tu Yu-Kang YK

PloS one 20150930 9

<h4>Background</h4>Risk of bias (ROB) may threaten the internal validity of a clinical trial by distorting the magnitude of treatment effect estimates, although some conflicting information on this assumption exists.<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study was evaluate the effect of ROB on the magnitude of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in periodontology and implant dentistry.<h4>Methods</h4>A search for Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs), including meta-an ...[more]

PMID: 26422698

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates within meta-analyses.DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sources93 meta-analyses (735 randomised controlled trials) assessing therapeutic interventions with binary outcomes, published in the 10 leading journals of each medical subject category of the Journal Citation Reports or in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Data extractionSample size, outcome data, and risk of bias extracted from each trial.Data synthesisTrials within each meta-analysis were sorted by their sample size: using quarters within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 with 25% of the smallest trials, to quarter 4 with 25% of the largest trials), and using size groups across meta-analyses (ranging from <50 to ≥ 1000 patients). Treatment effects were compared within each meta-analysis between quarters or between size groups by average ratios of odds ratios (where a ratio of odds ratios less than 1 indicates larger effects in smaller trials).ResultsTreatment effect estimates were significantly larger in smaller trials, regardless of sample size. Compared with quarter 4 (which included the largest trials), treatment effects were, on average, 32% larger in trials in quarter 1 (which included the smallest trials; ratio of odds ratios 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.82), 17% larger in trials in quarter 2 (0.83, 0.75 to 0.91), and 12% larger in trials in quarter 3 (0.88, 0.82 to 0.95). Similar results were obtained when comparing treatment effect estimates between different size groups. Compared with trials of 1000 patients or more, treatment effects were, on average, 48% larger in trials with fewer than 50 patients (0.52, 0.41 to 0.66) and 10% larger in trials with 500-999 patients (0.90, 0.82 to 1.00).ConclusionsTreatment effect estimates differed within meta-analyses solely based on trial sample size, with stronger effect estimates seen in small to moderately sized trials than in the largest trials.

Project description:To explore whether systematic reviewers selectively include trial effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple are available, and what impact this may have on meta-analytic effects.Cross-sectional study.We randomly selected systematic reviews of interventions from 2 clinical specialties published between January 2010 and 2012. The first presented meta-analysis of a continuous outcome in each review was selected (index meta-analysis), and all trial effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis (eg, from multiple scales or time points) were extracted from trial reports.We calculated a statistic (the Potential Bias Index (PBI)) to quantify and test for evidence of selective inclusion. The PBI ranges from 0 to 1; values above or below 0.5 are suggestive of selective inclusion of effect estimates more or less favourable to the intervention, respectively. The impact of any potential selective inclusion was investigated by comparing the index meta-analytic standardised mean difference (SMD) to the median of a randomly constructed distribution of meta-analytic SMDs (representing the meta-analytic SMD expected when there is no selective inclusion).31 reviews (250 trials) were included. The estimated PBI was 0.57 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.63), suggesting that trial effect estimates that were more favourable to the intervention were included in meta-analyses slightly more often than expected under a process consistent with random selection; however, the 95% CI included the null hypothesis of no selective inclusion. Any potential selective inclusion did not have an important impact on the meta-analytic effects.There was no clear evidence that selective inclusion of trial effect estimates occurred in this sample of meta-analyses. Further research on selective inclusion in other clinical specialties is needed. To enable readers to assess the risk of selective inclusion bias, we recommend that systematic reviewers report the methods used to select effect estimates to include in meta-analyses.

Project description:AimAnalysis of distribution of p-values of continuous differences between test and controls after randomization provides evidence of unintentional error, non-random sampling, or data fabrication in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed evidence of highly unusual distributions of baseline characteristics of subjects enrolled in clinical trials in implant dentistry.Materials and methodsRCTs published between 2005 and 2020 were systematically searched in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Baseline patient data were extracted from full text articles by two independent assessors. The hypothesis of non-random sampling was tested by comparing the expected and the observed distribution of the p-values of differences between test and controls after randomization.ResultsOne-thousand five-hundred and thirty-eight unique RCTs were identified, of which 409 (26.6%) did not report baseline characteristics of the population, and 671 (43.6%) reported data in forms other than mean and standard deviation and could not be used to assess their random sampling. Four-hundred and fifty-eight trials with 1449 baseline variables in the form of mean and standard deviation were assessed. The study observed an over-representation of very small p-values [<.001, 1.38%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-2.12 compared to the expected 0.10%, 95% CI 0.00-0.26]. No evidence of over-representation of larger p-values was observed. Unusual distributions were present in 2.38% of RCTs and more frequent in non-registered trials, in studies supported by non-industry funding, and in multi-centre RCTs.ConclusionsThe inability to assess random sampling due to insufficient reporting in 26.6% of trials requires attention. In trials reporting suitable baseline data, unusual distributions were uncommon, and no evidence of data fabrication was detected, but there was evidence of non-random sampling. Continued efforts are necessary to ensure high integrity and trust in the evidence base of the field.

Project description:Imputation is a commonly used technique that exploits linkage disequilibrium to infer missing genotypes in genetic datasets, using a well-characterized reference population. While there is agreement that the reference population has to match the ethnicity of the query dataset, it is common practice to use the same reference to impute genotypes for a wide variety of phenotypes. We hypothesized that using a reference composed of samples with a different phenotype than the query dataset would introduce imputation bias. To test this hypothesis we used GWAS datasets from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson Disease (PD), and Crohn's Disease (CD). First, we masked and then performed imputation of 100 disease-associated markers and 100 non-associated markers from each study. Two references for imputation were used in parallel: one consisting of healthy controls and another consisting of patients with the same disease. We assessed the discordance (imprecision) and bias (inaccuracy) of imputation by comparing predicted genotypes to those assayed by SNP-chip. We also assessed the bias on the observed effect size when the predicted genotypes were used in a GWAS study. When healthy controls were used as reference for imputation, a significant bias was observed, particularly in the disease-associated markers. Using cases as reference significantly attenuated this bias. For nearly all markers, the direction of the bias favored the non-risk allele. In GWAS studies of the three diseases (with healthy reference controls from the 1000 genomes as reference), the mean OR for disease-associated markers obtained by imputation was lower than that obtained using original assayed genotypes. We found that the bias is inherent to imputation as using different methods did not alter the results. In conclusion, imputation is a powerful method to predict genotypes and estimate genetic risk for GWAS. However, a careful choice of reference population is needed to minimize biases inherent to this approach.

Dataset Information

Effect of Risk of Bias on the Effect Size of Meta-Analytic Estimates in Randomized Controlled Trials in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Effect of Risk of Bias on the Effect Size of Meta-Analytic Estimates in Randomized Controlled Trials in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets