Dataset Information

Reviewing and assessing existing meta-analysis models and tools.

ABSTRACT: Over the past few years, meta-analysis has become popular among biomedical researchers for detecting biomarkers across multiple cohort studies with increased predictive power. Combining datasets from different sources increases sample size, thus overcoming the issue related to limited sample size from each individual study and boosting the predictive power. This leads to an increased likelihood of more accurately predicting differentially expressed genes/proteins or significant biomarkers underlying the biological condition of interest. Currently, several meta-analysis methods and tools exist, each having its own strengths and limitations. In this paper, we survey existing meta-analysis methods, and assess the performance of different methods based on results from different datasets as well as assessment from prior knowledge of each method. This provides a reference summary of meta-analysis models and tools, which helps to guide end-users on the choice of appropriate models or tools for given types of datasets and enables developers to consider current advances when planning the development of new meta-analysis models and more practical integrative tools.

SUBMITTER: Makinde FL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8575034 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reviewing and assessing existing meta-analysis models and tools.

Makinde Funmilayo L FL Tchamga Milaine S S MSS Jafali James J Fatumo Segun S Chimusa Emile R ER Mulder Nicola N Mazandu Gaston K GK

Briefings in bioinformatics 20211101 6

Over the past few years, meta-analysis has become popular among biomedical researchers for detecting biomarkers across multiple cohort studies with increased predictive power. Combining datasets from different sources increases sample size, thus overcoming the issue related to limited sample size from each individual study and boosting the predictive power. This leads to an increased likelihood of more accurately predicting differentially expressed genes/proteins or significant biomarkers underl ...[more]

PMID: 34415019

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Wearable sleep monitors are of high interest to consumers and researchers because of their ability to provide estimation of sleep patterns in free-living conditions in a cost-efficient way. OBJECTIVE:We conducted a systematic review of publications reporting on the performance of wristband Fitbit models in assessing sleep parameters and stages. METHODS:In adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, we comprehensively searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases using the keyword Fitbit to identify relevant publications meeting predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS:The search yielded 3085 candidate articles. After eliminating duplicates and in compliance with inclusion and exclusion criteria, 22 articles qualified for systematic review, with 8 providing quantitative data for meta-analysis. In reference to polysomnography (PSG), nonsleep-staging Fitbit models tended to overestimate total sleep time (TST; range from approximately 7 to 67 mins; effect size=-0.51, P<.001; heterogenicity: I2=8.8%, P=.36) and sleep efficiency (SE; range from approximately 2% to 15%; effect size=-0.74, P<.001; heterogenicity: I2=24.0%, P=.25), and underestimate wake after sleep onset (WASO; range from approximately 6 to 44 mins; effect size=0.60, P<.001; heterogenicity: I2=0%, P=.92) and there was no significant difference in sleep onset latency (SOL; P=.37; heterogenicity: I2=0%, P=.92). In reference to PSG, nonsleep-staging Fitbit models correctly identified sleep epochs with accuracy values between 0.81 and 0.91, sensitivity values between 0.87 and 0.99, and specificity values between 0.10 and 0.52. Recent-generation Fitbit models that collectively utilize heart rate variability and body movement to assess sleep stages performed better than early-generation nonsleep-staging ones that utilize only body movement. Sleep-staging Fitbit models, in comparison to PSG, showed no significant difference in measured values of WASO (P=.25; heterogenicity: I2=0%, P=.92), TST (P=.29; heterogenicity: I2=0%, P=.98), and SE (P=.19) but they underestimated SOL (P=.03; heterogenicity: I2=0%, P=.66). Sleep-staging Fitbit models showed higher sensitivity (0.95-0.96) and specificity (0.58-0.69) values in detecting sleep epochs than nonsleep-staging models and those reported in the literature for regular wrist actigraphy. CONCLUSIONS:Sleep-staging Fitbit models showed promising performance, especially in differentiating wake from sleep. However, although these models are a convenient and economical means for consumers to obtain gross estimates of sleep parameters and time spent in sleep stages, they are of limited specificity and are not a substitute for PSG.

Dataset Information

Reviewing and assessing existing meta-analysis models and tools.

Publications

Reviewing and assessing existing meta-analysis models and tools.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets