Development of a combined database for meta‐epidemiological research

Collections of meta‐analyses assembled in meta‐epidemiological studies are used to study associations of trial characteristics with intervention effect estimates. However, methods and findings are not consistent across studies. To combine data from 10 meta‐epidemiological studies into a single database, and derive a harmonized dataset without overlap between meta‐analyses. The database design allowed trials to be contained in different meta‐analyses, multiple meta‐analyses in systematic reviews, overlapping meta‐analyses between systematic reviews, and multiple references to the same trial or review. Unique identifiers were assigned to each reference and used to identify duplicate trials. Sets of meta‐analyses with overlapping trials were identified and duplicates removed. Overlapping trials were used to examine agreement between assessments of trial characteristics. The combined database contained 427 reviews, 454 meta‐analyses and 4874 trial results. Of these, 258 meta‐analyses were unique, while for 196 at least one trial overlapped with another meta‐analysis. Median kappa statistics for reliability of assessments were 0.60 for sequence generation, 0.58 for allocation concealment and 0.87 for blinding. Based on inspection of sets of overlapping meta‐analyses, 91 meta‐analyses containing 1344 trial results were removed. Additionally, 24 duplicated trial results were removed from 16 meta‐analyses, to derive a final database containing 363 meta‐analyses and 3477 unique trial results. The final database will be used to examine the combined evidence on sources of bias in randomized controlled trials. The strategy used to remove overlap between meta‐analyses may be of use for future empirical research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Lisa Hartling,et al.  Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  D. Altman,et al.  Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies , 2008 .

[3]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  J. Hilden,et al.  Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. , 2007, International journal of epidemiology.

[5]  J. Hilden,et al.  Multivariable modelling for meta‐epidemiological assessment of the association between trial quality and treatment effects estimated in randomized clinical trials , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  L. Gluud Bias in clinical intervention research. , 2006, American journal of epidemiology.

[7]  Alessandro Liberati,et al.  Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Comparison of large versus smaller randomized trials for mental health-related interventions. , 2005, The American journal of psychiatry.

[9]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. , 2004, JAMA.

[10]  Pamela Royle,et al.  LITERATURE SEARCHING FOR RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS USED IN COCHRANE REVIEWS: RAPID VERSUS EXHAUSTIVE SEARCHES , 2003, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[11]  David Moher,et al.  Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline? , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta‐epidemiological’ research , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  Ethan M Balk,et al.  Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. , 2002, JAMA.

[14]  Christian Gluud,et al.  Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  D G Altman,et al.  Concealing treatment allocation in randomised trials , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  R. Boruch,et al.  The Campbell Collaboration , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? , 2000, The Lancet.

[18]  D. Cook,et al.  Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? , 1998, The Lancet.

[19]  C D Naylor,et al.  Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research , 1997, BMJ.

[20]  R. J. Hayes,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. , 1995, JAMA.

[21]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. , 1992, JAMA.

[22]  G. Gurtner,et al.  Statistics in medicine. , 2011, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[23]  H. Handoll,et al.  Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants. , 2004, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[24]  J. Sterne,et al.  How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[25]  F. Song,et al.  Risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. , 1997, Journal of psychopharmacology.

[26]  P. D. Oldham Statistics in Medicine , 1973, Nature.