Dataset Information

Utilization of the evidence from studies with no events in meta-analyses of adverse events: an empirical investigation.

ABSTRACT:

Backgrounds

Zero-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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

We 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).

Conclusion

Systematic 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.

SUBMITTER: Xu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8204528 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveOverview on risks of acupuncture-related adverse events (AEs).DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses of prospective studies.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus and Embase from inception date to 15 September 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesProspective studies assessing AEs caused by needle acupuncture in humans as primary outcome published in English or German.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent researchers selected articles, extracted the data and assessed study quality. Overall risks and risks for different AE categories were obtained from random effects meta-analyses.Main outcomesOverall risk of minor AEs and serious adverse events (SAEs) per patients and per treatments.ResultsA total of 7679 publications were identified. Twenty-two articles reporting on 21 studies were included. Meta-analyses suggest at least one AE occurring in 9.31% (95% CI 5.10% to 14.62%, 11 studies) of patients undergoing an acupuncture series and in 7.57% (95% CI 1.43% to 17.95%, 5 studies) of treatments. Summary risk estimates for SAEs were 1.01 (95% CI 0.23 to 2.33, 11 studies) per 10 000 patients and 7.98 (95% CI 1.39 to 20.00, 14 studies) per one million treatments, for AEs requiring treatment 1.14 (95% CI 0.00 to 7.37, 8 studies) per 1000 patients. Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 >80%). On average, 9.4 AEs occurred in 100 treatments. Half of the AEs were bleeding, pain or flare at the needle site that are argued to represent intended acupuncture reaction. AE definitions and assessments varied largely.ConclusionAcupuncture can be considered among the safer treatments in medicine. SAEs are rare, and the most common minor AEs are very mild. AEs requiring medical management are uncommon but necessitate medical competence to assure patient safety. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity call for standardised AE assessments tools, clear criteria for differentiating acupuncture-related AEs from therapeutically desired reactions, and identification of patient-related risk factors for AEs.Prospero registration numberCRD42020151930.

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: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: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:Background: Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is an extensive class of biologically and clinically heterogeneous diseases with dismal outcomes. The histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi) romidepsin was approved for relapsed and refractory (R/R-PTCL) in 2011. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of romidepsin in PTCL. Methods: We searched for articles on the HDAC inhibitor romidepsin in the treatment of PTCL in Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed. The methodology is further detailed in PROSPERO (CRD42020213651, CRD42020213553). The 2-year overall survival (OS), 2-year progression-free survival (PFS), and their corresponding to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were measured. Besides, corresponding 95% CIs were pooled for the complete response (CR), partial response (PR), duration of response (DoR), and risk of adverse events (AEs). Results: Eleven studies containing 388 patients were incorporated into the quantitative synthesis, of which R/R-PTCL patients were the dominant portion, accounting for 94.3% (366/388). For all studies, the CR rate was 20% (95% CI, 13-27%, random effects model), and the PR rate was 18% (95% CI, 12-25%, random effects model). The 2-year OS was 48% (95% CI, 38-59%, fixed effects model), and the 2-year PFS was 17% (95% CI, 13-21%, fixed effects model). There were no significant differences between romidepsin monotherapy and romidepsin plus additional drugs. Hematological toxicities, such as lymphopenia and granulocytopenia, remained the most continually happening grade 3 or higher AEs, accounting for 46 and 28%, respectively. None of the studies reported any drug-related mortality. Conclusions: Considering that most of the included patients had R/R-PTCL, the addition of romidepsin significantly enhance the efficacy. And AEs were tolerable as the grade 3/4 AEs in romidepsin monotherapy was 7% (95% CI, 6-8%). It is imperative to further expand the first-line application of romidepsin and carry out personalized therapy based on epigenomics, which will improve the survival of PTCL patients. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020213651 and https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020213553.