Dataset Information

Real-world Performance of Meta-analysis Methods for Double-Zero-Event Studies with Dichotomous Outcomes Using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Meta-analysis combines multiple independent studies, which can increase power and provide better estimates. However, it is unclear how best to deal with studies with zero events; such studies are also known as double-zero-event studies (DZS). Several statistical methods have been proposed, but the agreement among different approaches has not been systematically assessed using real-world published systematic reviews. METHODS:The agreement of five commonly used methods (i.e., the inverse-variance, Mantel-Haenszel, Peto, Bayesian, and exact methods) was assessed using the Cohen's ? coefficients using 368 meta-analyses with rare events selected from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Three continuity corrections, including the correction of a constant 0.5, the treatment arm continuity correction (TACC), and the empirical (EMP) correction, were used to handle DZS when applying inverse-variance and Mantel-Haenszel methods. RESULTS:When the proportion of DZS studies was lower than 50% in a meta-analysis, different methods had moderately high agreement. However, when this proportion was increased to be over 50%, the agreement among the methods decreased to different extents. For the Bayesian, exact, and Peto methods and the inverse-variance and Mantel-Haenszel methods using the EMP correction, their agreement coefficients with the inverse-variance and Mantel-Haenszel methods using a constant 0.5 and TACC decreased from larger than 0.70 to smaller than 0.30. In contrast, the agreement coefficients only decreased slightly among the Bayesian, exact, and Peto methods and the inverse-variance and Mantel-Haenszel methods using the EMP correction. CONCLUSIONS:To utilize all available information and reduce research waste and avoid overestimating the effect, meta-analysts should incorporate DZS, rather than simply removing them. The Peto and other conventional methods with continuity correction should be avoided when the proportion of DZS is extremely high. The exact and Bayesian methods are highly recommended, except when none of the included studies have an event in one or both treatment arms.

SUBMITTER: Ren Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6544742 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Real-world Performance of Meta-analysis Methods for Double-Zero-Event Studies with Dichotomous Outcomes Using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Ren Yanan Y Lin Lifeng L Lian Qinshu Q Zou Hui H Chu Haitao H

Journal of general internal medicine 20190318 6

<h4>Background</h4>Meta-analysis combines multiple independent studies, which can increase power and provide better estimates. However, it is unclear how best to deal with studies with zero events; such studies are also known as double-zero-event studies (DZS). Several statistical methods have been proposed, but the agreement among different approaches has not been systematically assessed using real-world published systematic reviews.<h4>Methods</h4>The agreement of five commonly used methods (i ...[more]

PMID: 30887438

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes are frequently published within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). However, these outcomes are handled differently across meta-analyses. They can be analysed on the hazard ratio (HR) scale or can be dichotomized and analysed as binary outcomes using effect measures such as odds ratios (OR) or risk ratios (RR). We investigated the impact of reanalysing meta-analyses from the CDSR that used these different effect measures.MethodsWe extracted two types of meta-analysis data from the CDSR: either recorded in a binary form only ("binary"), or in binary form together with observed minus expected and variance statistics ("OEV"). We explored how results for time-to-event outcomes originally analysed as "binary" change when analysed using the complementary log-log (clog-log) link on a HR scale. For the data originally analysed as HRs ("OEV"), we compared these results to analysing them as binary on a HR scale using the clog-log link or using a logit link on an OR scale.ResultsThe pooled HR estimates were closer to 1 than the OR estimates in the majority of meta-analyses. Important differences in between-study heterogeneity between the HR and OR analyses were also observed. These changes led to discrepant conclusions between the OR and HR scales in some meta-analyses. Situations under which the clog-log link performed better than logit link and vice versa were apparent, indicating that the correct choice of the method does matter. Differences between scales arise mainly when event probability is high and may occur via differences in between-study heterogeneity or via increased within-study standard error in the OR relative to the HR analyses.ConclusionsWe identified that dichotomising time-to-event outcomes may be adequate for low event probabilities but not for high event probabilities. In meta-analyses where only binary data are available, the complementary log-log link may be a useful alternative when analysing time-to-event outcomes as binary, however the exact conditions need further exploration. These findings provide guidance on the appropriate methodology that should be used when conducting such meta-analyses.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious research on data extraction methods in systematic reviews has focused on single aspects of the process. We aimed to provide a deeper insight into these methods by analysing a current sample of reviews.MethodsWe included systematic reviews of health interventions in humans published in English. We analysed 75 Cochrane reviews from May and June 2020 and a random sample of non-Cochrane reviews published in the same period and retrieved from Medline. We linked reviews with protocols and study registrations. We collected information on preparing, piloting, and performing data extraction and on use of software to assist review conduct (automation tools). Data were extracted by one author, with 20% extracted in duplicate. Data were analysed descriptively.ResultsOf the 152 included reviews, 77 reported use of a standardized extraction form (51%); 42 provided information on the type of form used (28%); 24 on piloting (16%); 58 on what data was collected (38%); 133 on the extraction method (88%); 107 on resolving disagreements (70%); 103 on methods to obtain additional data or information (68%); 52 on procedures to avoid data errors (34%); and 47 on methods to deal with multiple study reports (31%). Items were more frequently reported in Cochrane than non-Cochrane reviews. The data extraction form used was published in 10 reviews (7%). Use of software was rarely reported except for statistical analysis software and use of RevMan and GRADEpro GDT in Cochrane reviews. Covidence was the most frequent automation tool used: 18 reviews used it for study selection (12%) and 9 for data extraction (6%).ConclusionsReporting of data extraction methods in systematic reviews is limited, especially in non-Cochrane reviews. This includes core items of data extraction such as methods used to manage disagreements. Few reviews currently use software to assist data extraction and review conduct. Our results can serve as a baseline to assess the uptake of such tools in future analyses.

Project description:BackgroundAprepitant, fosaprepitant, and netupitant are three common neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs) used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Understanding their different adverse event (AE) profiles may help clinicians make appropriate treatment decisions.MethodsAll data collected from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database from the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2023 underwent disproportionality analysis to detect, evaluate, and compare AE signals of the three NK-1RAs.ResultsA total of 3,904, 1,123, and 243 AE reports related to aprepitant, fosaprepitant, and netupitant, respectively, were extracted from the FAERS database. Of these, more than 50% of respondents were female, and most of them were aged 45-65 years. General disorders and administration-site conditions, and gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequent signals in the system organ class of the three NK-1RA drugs. In addition, aprepitant was strongly associated with joint deposit (ROR = 26.27) and fosaprepitant was closely related to seizure-like phenomena (ROR = 26.90); two preferred terms (PTs) were not mentioned in the manual. Statistically, netupitant was likely to induce death (N = 63, ROR = 8.78, 95% CI: 6.75-11.42). Additionally, neutropenic colitis, colitis, and stomatitis were unique to netupitant. Furthermore, the AE profiles of the three NK-1RA drugs were different by gender.ConclusionThe AE profiles for aprepitant, fosaprepitant, and netupitant were different. In addition to paying attention to common AEs, clinicians need to pay attention to new emerging AEs, such as joint deposit, seizure-like phenomena, neutropenic colitis, colitis, and stomatitis, regarding the three NK-1RA drugs. Furthermore, the AE compositions of the three NK-1RA drugs were different in different genders, and clinicians should take these factors into account when selecting NK-1RAs for CINV treatment.

Dataset Information

Real-world Performance of Meta-analysis Methods for Double-Zero-Event Studies with Dichotomous Outcomes Using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Publications

Real-world Performance of Meta-analysis Methods for Double-Zero-Event Studies with Dichotomous Outcomes Using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets