Dataset Information

Empirical evidence about inconsistency among studies in a pair-wise meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: This paper investigates how inconsistency (as measured by the I² statistic) among studies in a meta-analysis may differ, according to the type of outcome data and effect measure. We used hierarchical models to analyse data from 3873 binary, 5132 continuous and 880 mixed outcome meta-analyses within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Predictive distributions for inconsistency expected in future meta-analyses were obtained, which can inform priors for between-study variance. Inconsistency estimates were highest on average for binary outcome meta-analyses of risk differences and continuous outcome meta-analyses. For a planned binary outcome meta-analysis in a general research setting, the predictive distribution for inconsistency among log odds ratios had median 22% and 95% CI: 12% to 39%. For a continuous outcome meta-analysis, the predictive distribution for inconsistency among standardized mean differences had median 40% and 95% CI: 15% to 73%. Levels of inconsistency were similar for binary data measured by log odds ratios and log relative risks. Fitted distributions for inconsistency expected in continuous outcome meta-analyses using mean differences were almost identical to those using standardized mean differences. The empirical evidence on inconsistency gives guidance on which outcome measures are most likely to be consistent in particular circumstances and facilitates Bayesian meta-analysis with an informative prior for heterogeneity. © 2015 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. © 2015 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

SUBMITTER: Rhodes KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5217093 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Standard random-effects meta-analysis methods perform poorly when applied to few studies only. Such settings however are commonly encountered in practice. It is unclear, whether or to what extent small-sample-size behaviour can be improved by more sophisticated modeling. METHODS:We consider likelihood-based methods, the DerSimonian-Laird approach, Empirical Bayes, several adjustment methods and a fully Bayesian approach. Confidence intervals are based on a normal approximation, or on adjustments based on the Student-t-distribution. In addition, a linear mixed model and two generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) assuming binomial or Poisson distributed numbers of events per study arm are considered for pairwise binary meta-analyses. We extract an empirical data set of 40 meta-analyses from recent reviews published by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Methods are then compared empirically as well as in a simulation study, based on few studies, imbalanced study sizes, and considering odds-ratio (OR) and risk ratio (RR) effect sizes. Coverage probabilities and interval widths for the combined effect estimate are evaluated to compare the different approaches. RESULTS:Empirically, a majority of the identified meta-analyses include only 2 studies. Variation of methods or effect measures affects the estimation results. In the simulation study, coverage probability is, in the presence of heterogeneity and few studies, mostly below the nominal level for all frequentist methods based on normal approximation, in particular when sizes in meta-analyses are not balanced, but improve when confidence intervals are adjusted. Bayesian methods result in better coverage than the frequentist methods with normal approximation in all scenarios, except for some cases of very large heterogeneity where the coverage is slightly lower. Credible intervals are empirically and in the simulation study wider than unadjusted confidence intervals, but considerably narrower than adjusted ones, with some exceptions when considering RRs and small numbers of patients per trial-arm. Confidence intervals based on the GLMMs are, in general, slightly narrower than those from other frequentist methods. Some methods turned out impractical due to frequent numerical problems. CONCLUSIONS:In the presence of between-study heterogeneity, especially with unbalanced study sizes, caution is needed in applying meta-analytical methods to few studies, as either coverage probabilities might be compromised, or intervals are inconclusively wide. Bayesian estimation with a sensibly chosen prior for between-trial heterogeneity may offer a promising compromise.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesise evidence on the average bias and heterogeneity associated with reported methodological features of randomized trials.DesignSystematic review of meta-epidemiological studies.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsCertain 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.

Project description:In 2013, we published a comparative analysis of mutation and gene expression profiles and drug sensitivity measurements for 15 drugs characterized in the 471 cancer cell lines screened in the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) and Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE). While we found good concordance in gene expression profiles, there was substantial inconsistency in the drug responses reported by the GDSC and CCLE projects. We received extensive feedback on the comparisons that we performed. This feedback, along with the release of new data, prompted us to revisit our initial analysis. We present a new analysis using these expanded data, where we address the most significant suggestions for improvements on our published analysis - that targeted therapies and broad cytotoxic drugs should have been treated differently in assessing consistency, that consistency of both molecular profiles and drug sensitivity measurements should be compared across cell lines, and that the software analysis tools provided should have been easier to run, particularly as the GDSC and CCLE released additional data. Our re-analysis supports our previous finding that gene expression data are significantly more consistent than drug sensitivity measurements. Using new statistics to assess data consistency allowed identification of two broad effect drugs and three targeted drugs with moderate to good consistency in drug sensitivity data between GDSC and CCLE. For three other targeted drugs, there were not enough sensitive cell lines to assess the consistency of the pharmacological profiles. We found evidence of inconsistencies in pharmacological phenotypes for the remaining eight drugs. Overall, our findings suggest that the drug sensitivity data in GDSC and CCLE continue to present challenges for robust biomarker discovery. This re-analysis provides additional support for the argument that experimental standardization and validation of pharmacogenomic response will be necessary to advance the broad use of large pharmacogenomic screens.

Project description:BackgroundsZero-events studies frequently occur in systematic reviews of adverse events, which consist of an important source of evidence. We aimed to examine how evidence of zero-events studies was utilized in the meta-analyses of systematic reviews of adverse events.MethodsWe conducted a survey of systematic reviews published in two periods: January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2008, to April 25, 2011. Databases were searched for systematic reviews that conducted at least one meta-analysis of any healthcare intervention and used adverse events as the exclusive outcome. An adverse event was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or subject in healthcare practice. We summarized the frequency of occurrence of zero-events studies in eligible systematic reviews and how these studies were dealt with in the meta-analyses of these systematic reviews.ResultsWe included 640 eligible systematic reviews. There were 406 (63.45%) systematic reviews involving zero-events studies in their meta-analyses, among which 389 (95.11%) involved single-arm-zero-events studies and 223 (54.93%) involved double-arm-zero-events studies. The majority (98.71%) of these systematic reviews incorporated single-arm-zero-events studies into the meta-analyses. On the other hand, the majority (76.23%) of them excluded double-arm-zero-events studies from the meta-analyses, of which the majority (87.06%) did not discuss the potential impact of excluding such studies. Systematic reviews published at present (2015-2020) tended to incorporate zero-events studies in meta-analyses than those published in the past (2008-2011), but the difference was not significant (proportion difference=-0.09, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.03, p = 0.12).ConclusionSystematic review authors routinely treated studies with zero-events in both arms as "non-informative" carriers and excluded them from their reviews. Whether studies with no events are "informative" or not largely depends on the methods and assumptions applied, thus sensitivity analyses using different methods should be considered in future meta-analyses.

Dataset Information

Empirical evidence about inconsistency among studies in a pair-wise meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure