Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research

被引:276
作者
Sterne, JAC
Jüni, P
Schulz, KF
Altman, DG
Bartlett, C
Egger, M
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, Dept Social Med, MRC, Hlth Serv Res Collaborat, Bristol BS8 2PR, Avon, England
[2] Univ Bern, Dept Social & Prevent Med, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
[3] Univ N Carolina, Sch Med, Family Hlth Int, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[4] Univ N Carolina, Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[5] Inst Hlth Sci, Ctr Stat Med, Imperial Canc Res Fund, Med Stat Grp, Oxford, England
关键词
meta-analysis; clinical trials; publication bias; language bias; trial quality;
D O I
10.1002/sim.1184
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Biases in systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be examined in 'meta-epidemiological' studies, in which the influence of trial characteristics such as measures of study quality on treatment effect estimates is explored. Published studies to date have analysed data from collections of meta-analyses with binary outcomes, using logistic regression models that assume that there is no between- or within-meta-analysis heterogeneity. Using data from a study of publication bias (39 meta-analyses, 394 published and 88 unpublished trials) and language bias (29 meta-analyses, 297 English language trials and 52 non-English language trials), we compare results from logistic regression models, with and without robust standard errors to allow for clustering on meta-analysis, with results using a 'meta-meta-analytic' approach that can allow for between- and with in-meta-analysis heterogeneity. We also consider how to allow for the confounding effects of different trial characteristics. We show that both within- and between meta-analysis heterogeneity may be of importance in the analysis of meta-epidemiological studies, and that confounding exists between the effects of publication status and trial quality. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:1513 / 1524
页数:12
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration [J].
Altman, DG ;
Schulz, KF ;
Moher, D ;
Egger, M ;
Davidoff, F ;
Elbourne, D ;
Gotzsche, PC ;
Lang, T .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2001, 134 (08) :663-694
[2]  
[Anonymous], SYSTEMATIC REV HLTH
[3]   Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials - The CONSORT statement [J].
Begg, C ;
Cho, M ;
Eastwood, S ;
Horton, R ;
Moher, D ;
Olkin, I ;
Pitkin, R ;
Rennie, D ;
Schulz, KF ;
Simel, D ;
Stroup, DF .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (08) :637-639
[4]   A RANDOM-EFFECTS REGRESSION-MODEL FOR METAANALYSIS [J].
BERKEY, CS ;
HOAGLIN, DC ;
MOSTELLER, F ;
COLDITZ, GA .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1995, 14 (04) :395-411
[5]  
*COCHR LIB, 1998, COCHR DAT SYST REV
[6]   METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
DERSIMONIAN, R ;
LAIRD, N .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03) :177-188
[7]   FACTORS INFLUENCING PUBLICATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS - FOLLOW-UP OF APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED TO 2 INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS [J].
DICKERSIN, K ;
MIN, YI ;
MEINERT, CL .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1992, 267 (03) :374-378
[8]   Some aspects of the design and analysis of cluster randomization trials [J].
Donner, A .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES C-APPLIED STATISTICS, 1998, 47 :95-113
[9]   PUBLICATION BIAS IN CLINICAL RESEARCH [J].
EASTERBROOK, PJ ;
BERLIN, JA ;
GOPALAN, R ;
MATTHEWS, DR .
LANCET, 1991, 337 (8746) :867-872
[10]   Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test [J].
Egger, M ;
Smith, GD ;
Schneider, M ;
Minder, C .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 315 (7109) :629-634