Evaluating heterogeneity in cumulative meta-analyses.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Villanueva EV
PROVIDER: S-EPMC487901 | biostudies-other | 2004 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Evaluating heterogeneity in cumulative meta-analyses.
Villanueva Elmer V EV Zavarsek Silva S
BMC medical research methodology 20040713
<h4>Background</h4>Recently developed measures such as I2 and H allow the evaluation of the impact of heterogeneity in conventional meta-analyses. There has been no examination of the development of heterogeneity in the context of a cumulative meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>Cumulative meta-analyses of five smoking cessation interventions (clonidine, nicotine replacement therapy using gum and patch, physician advice and acupuncture) were used to calculate I2 and H. These values were plotted by yea ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionCumulative network meta-analysis (NMA) is a method to provide a global comparison of multiple treatments with real-time update to evidence users. Several studies investigated the ranking of cumulative NMA and the recommendations of practice guidelines. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has evaluated the cumulative NMA ranking and prescription patterns. Here, we present a protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation to compare the results of cumulative NMA with the recommendations in postmenopausal osteoporosis practice guidelines and with the actual prescriptions.Method and analysisWe will use the data of primary trials from the upcoming postmenopausal osteoporosis clinical practice guideline of the Endocrine Society. We will conduct cumulative NMA using all eligible trials and generate hierarchy of treatment rankings by using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. We will search practice guidelines in relevant society websites. Two review authors will extract the practice recommendations. We will use data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, a US representative sample of the non-institutionalised population, to determine the prescription patterns.Ethics and disseminationBecause all data will be retrieved from public databases, institutional review board approval is not required. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present key findings at conferences.Trial registration numberUMIN000031894: Pre-results.
| S-EPMC6286475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis is the systematic and quantitative synthesis of effect sizes and the exploration of their diversity across different studies. Meta-analyses are increasingly applied to synthesize data from genome-wide association (GWA) studies and from other teams that try to replicate the genetic variants that emerge from such investigations. Between-study heterogeneity is important to document and may point to interesting leads. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: To exemplify these issues, we used data from three GWA studies on type 2 diabetes and their replication efforts where meta-analyses of all data using fixed effects methods (not incorporating between-study heterogeneity) have already been published. We considered 11 polymorphisms that at least one of the three teams has suggested as susceptibility loci for type 2 diabetes. The I2 inconsistency metric (measuring the amount of heterogeneity not due to chance) was different from 0 (no detectable heterogeneity) for 6 of the 11 genetic variants; inconsistency was moderate to very large (I2 = 32-77%) for 5 of them. For these 5 polymorphisms, random effects calculations incorporating between-study heterogeneity revealed more conservative p-values for the summary effects compared with the fixed effects calculations. These 5 associations were perused in detail to highlight potential explanations for between-study heterogeneity. These include identification of a marker for a correlated phenotype (e.g. FTO rs8050136 being associated with type 2 diabetes through its effect on obesity); differential linkage disequilibrium across studies of the identified genetic markers with the respective culprit polymorphisms (e.g., possibly the case for CDKAL1 polymorphisms or for rs9300039 and markers in linkage disequilibrium, as shown by additional studies); and potential bias. Results were largely similar, when we treated the discovery and replication data from each GWA investigation as separate studies. SIGNIFICANCE: Between-study heterogeneity is useful to document in the synthesis of data from GWA investigations and can offer valuable insights for further clarification of gene-disease associations.
| S-EPMC1950790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mass spectrometry-based glycoproteomics has gone through some incredible developments over the last few years. Technological advances in glycopeptide enrichment, fragmentation methods, and data analysis workflows have enabled the transition of glycoproteomics from a niche application, mainly focused on the characterization of isolated glycoproteins, to a mature technology capable of profiling thousands of intact glycopeptides at once. In addition to numerous biological discoveries catalyzed by the technology, we are also observing an increase in studies focusing on global protein glycosylation and the relationship between multiple glycosylation sites on the same protein. It has become apparent that just describing protein glycosylation in terms of micro- and macro-heterogeneity, respectively, the variation and occupancy of glycans at a given site, is not sufficient to describe the observed interactions between sites. In this perspective we propose a new term, meta-heterogeneity, to describe a higher level of glycan regulation: the variation in glycosylation across multiple sites of a given protein. We provide literature examples of extensive meta-heterogeneity on relevant proteins such as antibodies, erythropoietin, myeloperoxidase, and a number of serum and plasma proteins. Furthermore, we postulate on the possible biological reasons and causes behind the intriguing meta-heterogeneity observed in glycoproteins.
| S-EPMC8724623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lagging exposure information is often undertaken to allow for a latency period in cumulative exposure-disease analyses. The authors first consider bias and confidence interval coverage when using the standard approaches of fitting models under several lag assumptions and selecting the lag that maximizes either the effect estimate or model goodness of fit. Next, they consider bias that occurs when the assumption that the latency period is a fixed constant does not hold. Expressions were derived for bias due to misspecification of lag assumptions, and simulations were conducted. Finally, the authors describe a method for joint estimation of parameters describing an exposure-response association and the latency distribution. Analyses of associations between cumulative asbestos exposure and lung cancer mortality among textile workers illustrate this approach. Selecting the lag that maximizes the effect estimate may lead to bias away from the null; selecting the lag that maximizes model goodness of fit may lead to confidence intervals that are too narrow. These problems tend to increase as the within-person exposure variation diminishes. Lagging exposure assignment by a constant will lead to bias toward the null if the distribution of latency periods is not a fixed constant. Direct estimation of latency periods can minimize bias and improve confidence interval coverage.
| S-EPMC3276301 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is often challenging to present the available evidence in a timely and comprehensible manner. We aimed to visualize the evolution of evidence about antidepressants for depression by conducting cumulative network meta-analyses (NMAs) and to examine whether it could have helped the selection of optimal drugs. We built a Shiny web application that performs and presents cumulative NMAs based on R netmeta. We used a comprehensive dataset of double-blind randomized controlled trials of 21 antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depression. The primary outcomes were efficacy (treatment response) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), and treatment effects were summarized via odds ratios. We evaluated the confidence in evidence using the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) framework for a series of consecutive NMAs. Users can change several conditions for the analysis, such as the period of synthesis, among the others. We present the league tables and two-dimensional plots that combine efficacy, acceptability and level of confidence in the evidence together, for NMAs conducted in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2016. They reveal that through the past four decades, newly approved drugs often showed initially exaggerated results, which tended to diminish and stabilize after approximately a decade. Over the years, the drugs with relative superiority changed dramatically; but as the evidence network grew larger and better connected, the overall confidence improved. The Shiny app visualizes how evidence evolved over years, emphasizing the need for a careful interpretation of relative effects between drugs, especially for the potentially amplified performance of newly approved drugs. HIGHLIGHTS: Network meta-analysis is considered to be a proper way of demonstrating the available evidence, since it allows comparisons between multiple interventions, and has been proved to be statistically powerful. It is challenging to present the voluminous results of NMA in an efficient and comprehendible manner. Evidence evolution based on the relatively new method NMA has not been investigated yet. The results of NMA should not only include the effects but also the confidence in the evidence, which can help interpret the findings appropriately. Effective use of rapidly developing statistical analysis and presentation tools such as Shiny package in R, may facilitate and simplify the visualization of NMA output. We should stay conservative towards new drugs, as their performance was often shown to be exaggerated initially, and it took time to become stable.
| S-EPMC7818396 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBreast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic surgeries worldwide. Therefore, it is imperative to have evidence with high methodological quality to guide clinical decision making.ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) focused on breast augmentation.MethodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was performed. SRs that have a particular focus on breast augmentation and were published in the top 15 plastic and reconstructive surgery journals were included. Quality assessment was performed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Study characteristics were extracted including journal and impact factor, year of publication, country affiliation of the corresponding author, reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, number of citations, and number of studies included.ResultsAmong the 22 studies included for analysis, the mean AMSTAR score was moderate (5.55), with no SR achieving good quality (AMSTAR score of ≥9). There were no significant associations between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor, number of citations, year of publication, or number of included studies. Studies that reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines on average scored higher on the AMSTAR tool (P = 0.03).ConclusionsThe methodological quality of reviews about breast augmentation was found to be moderate, with no significant increase in studies or quality over time. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines and increased appraisal of SRs about breast augmentation using methodological assessment tools would further strengthen methodological quality and confidence in study findings.
| S-EPMC8259036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePolypharmacy is associated with mortality, falls, hospitalizations, and functional and cognitive decline. The study of polypharmacy-related interventions has increased substantially, prompting the need for an updated, more focused systematic overview.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate and summarize evidence across multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing polypharmacy.Evidence reviewA search was conducted of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects for articles published from January 2017-October 2022, as well as those identified in a previous overview (January 2004-February 2017). Systematic reviews were included regardless of study design, setting, or outcome. The evidence was summarized by 4 categories: (1) medication-related process outcomes (eg, potentially inappropriate medication [PIM] and potential prescribing omission reductions), (2) clinical and functional outcomes, (3) health care use and economic outcomes, and (4) acceptability of the intervention.FindingsFourteen SRs were identified (3 from the previous overview), 7 of which included meta-analyses, representing 179 unique published studies. Nine SRs examined medication-related process outcomes (low to very low evidence quality). Systematic reviews using pooled analyses found significant reductions in the number of PIMs, potential prescribing omissions, and total number of medications, and improvements in medication appropriateness. Twelve SRs examined clinical and functional outcomes (very low to moderate evidence quality). Five SRs examined mortality; all mortality meta-analyses were null, but studies with longer follow-up periods found greater reductions in mortality. Five SRs examined falls incidence; results were predominantly null save for a meta-analysis in which PIMs were discontinued. Of the 8 SRs examining quality of life, most (7) found predominantly null effects. Ten SRs examined hospitalizations and readmissions (very low to moderate evidence quality) and 4 examined emergency department visits (very low to low evidence quality). One SR found significant reductions in hospitalizations and readmissions among higher-intensity medication reviews with face-to-face patient components. Another meta-analysis found a null effect. Of the 7 SRs without meta-analyses for hospitalizations and readmissions, all had predominantly null results. Two of 4 SRs found reductions in emergency department visits. Two SRs examined acceptability (very low evidence quality), finding wide variation in the adoption of polypharmacy-related interventions.Conclusions and relevanceThis updated systematic overview noted little evidence of an association between polypharmacy-related interventions and reduced important clinical and health care use outcomes. More evidence is needed regarding which interventions are most useful and which populations would benefit most.
| S-EPMC10782233 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Assessment of heterogeneity is essential in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials. The most commonly used heterogeneity measure, I(2), provides an estimate of the proportion of variability in a meta-analysis that is explained by differences between the included trials rather than by sampling error. Recent studies have raised concerns about the reliability of I(2) estimates, due to their dependence on the precision of included trials and time-dependent biases. Authors have also advocated use of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to express the uncertainty associated with I(2) estimates. However, no previous studies have explored how many trials and events are required to ensure stable and reliable I(2) estimates, or how 95% CIs perform as evidence accumulates. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: To assess the stability and reliability of I(2) estimates and their 95% CIs, in relation to the cumulative number of trials and events in meta-analysis, we looked at 16 large Cochrane meta-analyses--each including a sufficient number of trials and events to reliably estimate I(2)--and monitored the I(2) estimates and their 95% CIs for each year of publication. In 10 of the 16 meta-analyses, the I(2) estimates fluctuated more than 40% over time. The median number of events and trials required before the cumulative I(2) estimates stayed within +/-20% of the final I(2) estimate was 467 and 11. No major fluctuations were observed after 500 events and 14 trials. The 95% confidence intervals provided good coverage over time. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: I(2) estimates need to be interpreted with caution when the meta-analysis only includes a limited number of events or trials. Confidence intervals for I(2) estimates provide good coverage as evidence accumulates, and are thus valuable for reflecting the uncertainty associated with estimating I(2).
| S-EPMC3405079 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe investigated the associations between risk of bias judgments from Cochrane reviews for sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, and between-trial heterogeneity.Study design and settingBayesian hierarchical models were fitted to binary data from 117 meta-analyses, to estimate the ratio λ by which heterogeneity changes for trials at high/unclear risk of bias compared with trials at low risk of bias. We estimated the proportion of between-trial heterogeneity in each meta-analysis that could be explained by the bias associated with specific design characteristics.ResultsUnivariable analyses showed that heterogeneity variances were, on average, increased among trials at high/unclear risk of bias for sequence generation (λˆ 1.14, 95% interval: 0.57-2.30) and blinding (λˆ 1.74, 95% interval: 0.85-3.47). Trials at high/unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment were on average less heterogeneous (λˆ 0.75, 95% interval: 0.35-1.61). Multivariable analyses showed that a median of 37% (95% interval: 0-71%) heterogeneity variance could be explained by trials at high/unclear risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment, and/or blinding. All 95% intervals for changes in heterogeneity were wide and included the null of no difference.ConclusionOur interpretation of the results is limited by imprecise estimates. There is some indication that between-trial heterogeneity could be partially explained by reported design characteristics, and hence adjustment for bias could potentially improve accuracy of meta-analysis results.
| S-EPMC5828111 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Changes in response of a biological pathway could be a consequence of either pathway rewiring, changed input, or a combination of both. Most pathway analysis methods are not designed for mechanistic rewiring such as regulatory element variations. This limits our understanding of biological pathway evolution. Here we present a Q-method to discern whether changed pathway response is caused by mechanistic rewiring of pathways due to evolution. The main innovation is a cumulative pathway interaction heterogeneity statistic accounting for rewiring-specific effects on the rate of change of each molecular variable across conditions. The Q-method remarkably outperformed differential-correlation based approaches on data from diverse biological processes. Strikingly, it also worked well in differentiating rewired chaotic systems, whose dynamics are notoriously difficult to predict. Applying the Q-method on transcriptome data of four yeasts, we show that pathway interaction heterogeneity for known metabolic and signaling pathways is indeed a predictor of interspecies genetic rewiring due to unbalanced TATA box-containing genes among the yeasts. The demonstrated effectiveness of the Q-method paves the way to understanding network evolution at the resolution of functional biological pathways.
| S-EPMC4894439 | biostudies-literature