Dataset Information

Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To synthesise evidence on the average bias and heterogeneity associated with reported methodological features of randomized trials.

Design

Systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies.

Methods

We retrieved eligible studies included in a recent AHRQ-EPC review on this topic (latest search September 2012), and searched Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE for studies indexed from Jan 2012-May 2015. Data were extracted by one author and verified by another. We combined estimates of average bias (e.g. ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or difference in standardised mean differences (dSMD)) in meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Analyses were stratified by type of outcome ("mortality" versus "other objective" versus "subjective"). Direction of effect was standardised so that ROR < 1 and dSMD < 0 denotes a larger intervention effect estimate in trials with an inadequate or unclear (versus adequate) characteristic.

Results

We included 24 studies. The available evidence suggests that intervention effect estimates may be exaggerated in trials with inadequate/unclear (versus adequate) sequence generation (ROR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 7 studies) and allocation concealment (ROR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97; 7 studies). For these characteristics, the average bias appeared to be larger in trials of subjective outcomes compared with other objective outcomes. Also, intervention effects for subjective outcomes appear to be exaggerated in trials with lack of/unclear blinding of participants (versus blinding) (dSMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.77 to 0.04; 2 studies), lack of/unclear blinding of outcome assessors (ROR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 1 study) and lack of/unclear double blinding (ROR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; 1 study). The influence of other characteristics (e.g. unblinded trial personnel, attrition) is unclear.

Conclusions

Certain characteristics of randomized trials may exaggerate intervention effect estimates. The average bias appears to be greatest in trials of subjective outcomes. More research on several characteristics, particularly attrition and selective reporting, is needed.

SUBMITTER: Page MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4939945 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency, validity, and relevance of statistically significant (P<0.05) sex-treatment interactions in randomized controlled trials in Cochrane meta-analyses. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and PubMed. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Reviews published in the CDSR with sex-treatment subgroup analyses in the forest plots, using data from randomized controlled trials. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on the study design and sex subgroup data were extracted from reviews and forest plots that met inclusion criteria. For each statistically significant sex-treatment interaction, the potential for biological plausibility and clinical significance was considered. RESULTS: Among the 41 reviews with relevant data, there were 109 separate treatment-outcome analyses ("topics"). Among the 109 topics, eight (7%) had a statistically significant sex-treatment interaction. The 109 topics included 311 randomized controlled trials (162 with both sexes, 46 with males only, 103 with females only). Of the 162 individual randomized controlled trials that included both sexes, 15 (9%) had a statistically significant sex-treatment interaction. Of four topics where the first published randomized controlled trial had a statistically significant sex-treatment interaction, no meta-analyses that included other randomized controlled trials retained the statistical significance and no meta-analyses showed statistical significance when data from the first published randomized controlled trial were excluded. Of the eight statistically significant sex-treatment interactions from the overall analyses, only three were discussed by the CDSR reviewers for a potential impact on different clinical management for males compared with females. None of these topics had a sex-treatment interaction that influenced treatment recommendations in recent guidelines. UpToDate, an online physician-authored clinical decision support resource, suggested differential management of men and women for one of these sex-treatment interactions. CONCLUSION: Statistically significant sex-treatment interactions are only slightly more frequent than what would be expected by chance and there is little evidence of subsequent corroboration or clinical relevance of sex-treatment interactions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Publication and related biases (including publication bias, time-lag bias, outcome reporting bias and p-hacking) have been well documented in clinical research, but relatively little is known about their presence and extent in health services research (HSR). This paper aims to systematically review evidence concerning publication and related bias in quantitative HSR. METHODS:Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Cochrane EPOC Review Group and several websites were searched to July 2018. Information was obtained from: (1) Methodological studies that set out to investigate publication and related biases in HSR; (2) Systematic reviews of HSR topics which examined such biases as part of the review process. Relevant information was extracted from included studies by one reviewer and checked by another. Studies were appraised according to commonly accepted scientific principles due to lack of suitable checklists. Data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS:After screening 6155 citations, four methodological studies investigating publication bias in HSR and 184 systematic reviews of HSR topics (including three comparing published with unpublished evidence) were examined. Evidence suggestive of publication bias was reported in some of the methodological studies, but evidence presented was very weak, limited in both quality and scope. Reliable data on outcome reporting bias and p-hacking were scant. HSR systematic reviews in which published literature was compared with unpublished evidence found significant differences in the estimated intervention effects or association in some but not all cases. CONCLUSIONS:Methodological research on publication and related biases in HSR is sparse. Evidence from available literature suggests that such biases may exist in HSR but their scale and impact are difficult to estimate for various reasons discussed in this paper. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016052333.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the agreement between diet-disease effect estimates of bodies of evidence from randomised controlled trials and those from cohort studies in nutrition research, and to investigate potential factors for disagreement.DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Medline.Review methodsPopulation, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome (PI/ECO) elements from a body of evidence from cohort studies (BoE(CS)) were matched with corresponding elements of a body of evidence from randomised controlled trials (BoE(RCT)). Pooled ratio of risk ratios or difference of mean differences across all diet-disease outcome pairs were calculated. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore factors for disagreement. Heterogeneity was assessed through I2 and τ2. Prediction intervals were calculated to assess the range of possible values for the difference in the results between evidence from randomised controlled trials and evidence from cohort studies in future comparisons.Results97 diet-disease outcome pairs (that is, matched BoE(RCT) and BoE(CS)) were identified overall. For binary outcomes, the pooled ratio of risk ratios comparing estimates from BoE(RCT) with BoE(CS) was 1.09 (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.14; I2=68%; τ2=0.021; 95% prediction interval 0.81 to 1.46). The prediction interval indicated that the difference could be much more substantial, in either direction. We further explored heterogeneity and found that PI/ECO dissimilarities, especially for the comparisons of dietary supplements in randomised controlled trials and nutrient status in cohort studies, explained most of the differences. When the type of intake or exposure between both types of evidence was identical, the estimates were similar. For continuous outcomes, small differences were observed between randomised controlled trials and cohort studies.ConclusionOn average, the difference in pooled results between estimates from BoE(RCT) and BoE(CS) was small. But wide prediction intervals and some substantial statistical heterogeneity in cohort studies indicate that important differences or potential bias in individual comparisons or studies cannot be excluded. Observed differences were mainly driven by dissimilarities in population, intervention or exposure, comparator, and outcome. These findings could help researchers further understand the integration of such evidence into prospective nutrition evidence syntheses and improve evidence based dietary guidelines.

Project description:Objective To examine whether a very large effect (VLE; defined as a relative risk of ?0.2 or ?5) in a randomised trial could be an empirical marker that subsequent trials are unnecessary.Design Meta-epidemiological assessment of existing published data on randomised trials.Data sources Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2010, issue 7) with data on subsequent large trials updated to 2015, issue 12.Eligibility criteria All binary outcome forest plots were selected, which contained an index randomised trial with a VLE that was nominally statistically significant (P<0.05), included a subsequent large randomised trial (?200 events and ?200 non-events) for validation of the effect, assessed a primary outcome of the review, and was not a subgroup or sensitivity analysis.Results Of 3082 reviews yielding 85?002 forest plots, only 44 (0.05%) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Index trials were generally small, with a median sample of 99 (median 14 events). Few index trials were rated at low risk of bias (9 of 44; 20%). The relative risk was closer to the null in the subsequent large trials in 43 of 44 cases. Subsequent large trial data failed to find a statistically significant (P<0.05) effect in the same direction in 19 cases (43%, 95% confidence interval 29% to 58%). Even when the subsequent large trials did find a significant effect in the same direction, the additional primary outcomes in most of these trials would have to be considered before deciding in favour of using the intervention. Subsequent large trial data found a statistically significant effect in the same direction in 19 of 21 cases when the index trial also had a value of P<0.001.Conclusions The frequency of VLEs followed by a large trial is vanishingly small, and where they occur they do not appear to be a reliable marker for a benefit that is reproducible and directly actionable. An empirical rule using a VLE in a randomised controlled trial as a marker that further trials are unnecessary would be neither practical nor useful. Caution should be taken when interpreting small studies with very large treatment effects.