Most meta-analyses of drug interventions have narrow scopes and many focus on specific agents

被引:18
作者
Haidich, Anna-Bettina [1 ]
Pilalas, Dimitrios [2 ]
Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Despina G. [3 ,4 ]
Ioannidis, John P. A. [5 ,6 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki, Sch Med, Dept Hyg & Epidemiol, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece
[2] Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki, AHEPA Univ Hosp, Sch Med, Div Infect Dis,Dept Internal Med 1, Thessaloniki 54636, Greece
[3] Stanford Univ, Div Infect Dis, Dept Pediat, Sch Med, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[4] Palo Alto Med Fdn, Res Inst, Palo Alto, CA 94301 USA
[5] Stanford Univ, Dept Med, Stanford Prevent Res Ctr, Sch Med, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[6] Stanford Univ, Sch Med, Dept Hlth Res & Policy, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[7] Stanford Univ, Sch Humanities & Sci, Dept Stat, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
关键词
Meta-analysis; Randomized controlled trials; Evidence-based medicine; Bias; Industry; Research agenda; INDUSTRY-SUPPORTED METAANALYSES; SYSTEMATIC-REVIEWS; QUALITY; SPONSORSHIP; UPDATE; TRIALS; NEED;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.10.014
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
100404 [儿少卫生与妇幼保健学];
摘要
Objective: To assess the extent to which meta-analysis publications of drugs and biologics focus on specific named agents or even only a single agent, and identify characteristics associated with such focus. Study Design and Setting: We evaluated 499 articles with meta-analyses published in 2010 and estimated how many did not cover all the available comparisons of tested interventions for a given condition (not all-inclusive); focused on specific named agent(s), or focused strictly on comparisons of only one specific active agent vs. placebo/no treatment or different doses/schedules. Results: Of 499 eligible articles, 403 (80.8%) were not all-inclusive, 214 (42.9%) covered only specific named agent(s), and 74 (14.8%) examined only comparisons with one active agent vs. placebo/no treatment or different doses/schedules. Only 39 articles (7.8%) covered all possible indications for the examined agent(s). After adjusting for type of treatment/field, focus on specific named agent(s) was associated with publication in journal venues (odds ratio [OR]: 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-3.26) vs. Cochrane, industry sponsoring (OR: 3.94; 95% CI: 1.66-10.66), and individual patient data analyses (OR: 6.59; 95% CI: 2.24-19.39). Individual patient data analyses primarily (29/34) focused on specific named agent(s). Conclusion: The scope of meta-analysis publications frequently is narrow and shaped to serve particular agents. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:371 / 378
页数:8
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]
[Anonymous], 2001, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V323, P651
[2]
[Anonymous], 2010, COCHRANE DATABASE SY
[3]
Atkins D, 2004, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V328, P1490
[4]
Basow DS, 2012, UPTODATE
[5]
Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: Why some statins appear more efficacious than others [J].
Bero, Lisa ;
Oostvogel, Fieke ;
Bacchetti, Peter ;
Lee, Kirby .
PLOS MEDICINE, 2007, 4 (06) :1001-1010
[6]
Daptomycin Versus Other Antimicrobial Agents for the Treatment of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: A Meta-Analysis [J].
Bliziotis, Ioannis A. ;
Plessa, Eleni ;
Peppas, George ;
Falagas, Matthew E. .
ANNALS OF PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2010, 44 (01) :97-106
[7]
An international registry of systematic-review protocols [J].
Booth, Alison ;
Clarke, Mike ;
Ghersi, Davina ;
Moher, David ;
Petticrew, Mark ;
Stewart, Lesley .
LANCET, 2011, 377 (9760) :108-109
[8]
Efficacy and safety of linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI): a meta-analysis [J].
Bounthavong, Mark ;
Hsu, Donald I. .
CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2010, 26 (02) :407-421
[9]
Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence [J].
Caldwell, DM ;
Ades, AE ;
Higgins, JPT .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 331 (7521) :897-900
[10]
Cipriani A, 2010, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI [10.1002/14651858.CD006117.pub3, 10.1002/14651858.CD006117.pub2]