Mejora de la calidad de los informes de los metaanálisis de los ensayos clínicos controlados: el acuerdo QUOROM

La Conferencia sobre Calidad de Elaboracion de los Informes de los Metaanalisis (QUOROM) se convoco con el fin de abordar la mejora de la calidad de la elaboracion de los informes de los metaanalisis de los ensayos clinicos controlados (ECC). El Grupo QUOROM estuvo integrado por 30 personas, entre epidemiologos clinicos, estadisticos, editores e investigadores. Durante la conferencia se pidio al grupo que identificase aquellos elementos que, en su opinion, se deberian incluir en un protocolo de control de calidad por niveles. En la medida de lo posible, la eleccion de los elementos de dicho protocolo se guio por la evidencia cientifica, que sugeria que el incumplimiento del elemento propuesto se podria traducir en resultados sesgados. Se utilizo una tecnica Delphi modificada para valorar los elementos seleccionados a priori como parte del protocolo. La conferencia se tradujo en la declaracion QUOROM, un protocolo de control de calidad y un diagrama de flujo. El protocolo de control de calidad describe la que creemos es la mejor forma de presentar el resumen, la introduccion, los metodos, los resultados y la discusion del informe de un metaanalisis. Esta organizada en 21 categorias y subcategorias relativas a busquedas, seleccion, evaluacion de la validez, analisis de los datos, caracteristicas del estudio y sintesis de los datos cuantitativos, y en los resultados de "flujo de pruebas"; se identifico la documentacion de la investigacion con 18 elementos. El diagrama de flujo proporciona informacion tanto sobre el numero de ensayos clinicos controlados identificados, incluidos y excluidos, como sobre las razones de su exclusion. Esperamos que este trabajo genere un mayor grado de reflexion sobre como mejorar la calidad de los informes de los metaanalisis de los ensayos clinicos controlados, y que los lectores, revisores, investigadores y editores utilicen la declaracion QUOROM y generen ideas destinadas a su mejora.

[1]  L. Bero,et al.  Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. , 1998, JAMA.

[2]  T R Einarson,et al.  Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association. , 1994, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[3]  D. Moher,et al.  Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews , 1996, The Lancet.

[4]  D. Cook,et al.  Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  S G Thompson,et al.  Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated , 1994, BMJ.

[6]  I Olkin,et al.  Re: "A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods". , 1994, American journal of epidemiology.

[7]  N I Whitman,et al.  The Delphi technique as an alternative for committee meetings. , 1990, The Journal of nursing education.

[8]  G. Grégoire,et al.  Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  M. Tramèr,et al.  Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study , 1997, BMJ.

[10]  A. Vickers,et al.  Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. , 1998, Controlled clinical trials.

[11]  S. Walter,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias in infertility research: overestimation of treatment effect in crossover trials using pregnancy as the outcome measure. , 1996, Fertility and sterility.

[12]  W. McIlroy,et al.  Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. , 1993, JAMA.

[13]  M. Smith Publication bias and meta-analysis , 1980 .

[14]  S. Gilbody,et al.  Risperidone versus typical antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia. , 2000, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[15]  M. Adena,et al.  Risperidone versus haloperidol: I. Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety. , 1998, Clinical therapeutics.

[16]  R J Cook,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. , 1995, JAMA.

[17]  K. Dickersin,et al.  NIH clinical trials and publication bias. , 1993, The Online journal of current clinical trials.

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

[20]  K A L'Abbé,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical research. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[21]  L. McAuley The influence of 'grey' literature on meta-analysis. , 1999 .

[22]  D. Cook,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[23]  C. Lengeler,et al.  Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German , 1997, The Lancet.

[24]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. , 1994, BMJ.

[25]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[26]  D. Cook,et al.  A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. , 1997, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[27]  P Huston,et al.  Cochrane Collaboration helping unravel tangled web woven by international research. , 1996, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[28]  H S Sacks,et al.  Meta-analysis: an update. , 1996, The Mount Sinai journal of medicine, New York.

[29]  S. Leucht,et al.  Efficacy and extrapyramidal side-effects of the new antipsychotics olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and sertindole compared to conventional antipsychotics and placebo. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials , 1999, Schizophrenia Research.

[30]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[31]  P. Easterbrook,et al.  Publication bias in clinical research , 1991, The Lancet.

[32]  Theodor D. Sterling,et al.  Publication decisions revisited: the effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to p , 1995 .

[33]  C. Mulrow The medical review article: state of the science. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[34]  I Olkin,et al.  Statistical and theoretical considerations in meta-analysis. , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[35]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. , 1994, JAMA.

[36]  I. Chalmers The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, Maintaining, and Disseminating Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Health Care , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[37]  D. Moher,et al.  Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: I. Getting started. , 1998, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

[38]  B. Haynes,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care , 1994 .

[39]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews , 1994 .

[40]  Checklist of Information for Inclusion in Reports of Clinical Trials , 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[41]  R. Simes Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. , 1986, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[42]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Identification of meta-analyses. The need for standard terminology. , 1990, Controlled clinical trials.