Cancer, meta-analysis and reporting biases: the case of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.

Reporting and publication bias is a well-known problem in meta-analysis and healthcare research. In 2002 we conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) on overall survival in cancer patients, which suggested some evidence for improved survival in patients receiving ESAs compared with controls. However, a meta-analysis of individual patient data conducted several years later showed the opposite of our first meta-analysis, that is, evidence for increased on-study mortality and reduced overall survival in cancer patients receiving ESAs. We aimed to determine whether the results of our first meta-analysis could have been affected by publication and reporting biases and, if so, whether timely access to clinical study reports and individual patient data could have prevented this. We conducted a hypothetical meta-analysis for overall survival including all studies and study data that could have been available in 2002, at the time when we conducted our first meta-analysis. Compared with our original meta-analysis, which suggested an overall survival benefit for cancer patients receiving ESAs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67‒0.99], our hypothetical meta-analysis based on the results of all studies conducted at the time of the first analysis did not show evidence for a beneficial effect of ESAs on overall survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83‒1.12). Thus we have to conclude that our first meta-analysis showed misleading overall survival benefits due to publication and reporting biases, which could have been prevented by timely access to clinical study reports and individual patient data. Unrestricted access to clinical study protocols including amendments, clinical study reports and individual patient data is needed to ensure timely detection of both beneficial and harmful effects of healthcare interventions.

Testing the allegiance bias hypothesis: a meta-analysis

This meta-analysis investigated whether the association between researcher allegiance (RA) and the relative effect of two psychotherapies can be explained through the methodological weaknesses of the treatment comparisons. Seventy-nine comparisons of psychotherapies for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were included. Methodological quality (MQ) was investigated as both a moderator and a mediator of the RA-outcome association. MQ included balanced nonspecific factors, balanced specific factors, conceptual quality, patients-per-therapist ratio, randomization to conditions and outcome assessment. The RA-outcome association was stronger when the MQ was low, suggesting a buffering effect of MQ. In addition, differences in the conceptual quality of treatments mediated the effect of RA on outcome. The results support the view that RA acts as a bias in treatment comparisons.

Ascertainment, meta-analysis and reporting of adverse reactions in clinical trials of antibiotics

The ascertainment and analysis of adverse reactions to investigational agents presents a significant challenge because of the infrequency of these events, their subjective nature and the low priority of safety evaluations in many clinical trials. A one year review of antibiotic trials published in medical journals demonstrates the lack of standards in identifying and reporting these potentially fatal conditions. This review also illustrates the low probability of observing and detecting rare events in typical clinical trials which include fewer than 300 subjects. Uniform standards for ascertainment and reporting are suggested which include operational definitions of study subjects. Meta-analysis of selected antibiotic trials using multivariate regression analysis indicates that meaningful conclusions may be drawn from data from multiple studies which are pooled in a scientifically rigorous manner. ^

Vaccinations and childhood type 1 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of observational studies

Aims/hypothesis The aim of this study was to investigate the association between routine vaccinations and the risk of childhood type 1 diabetes mellitus by systematically reviewing the published literature and performing meta-analyses where possible.

Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed of MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all studies that compared vaccination rates in children who subsequently developed type 1 diabetes mellitus and in control children. ORs and 95% CIs were obtained from published reports or derived from individual patient data and then combined using a random effects meta-analysis.

Results In total, 23 studies investigating 16 vaccinations met the inclusion criteria. Eleven of these contributed to meta-analyses which included data from between 359 and 11,828 childhood diabetes cases. Overall, there was no evidence to suggest an association between any of the childhood vaccinations investigated and type 1 diabetes mellitus. The pooled ORs ranged from 0.58 (95% CI 0.24, 1.40) for the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination in five studies up to 1.04 (95% CI 0.94, 1.14) for the haemophilus influenza B (HiB) vaccination in 11 studies. Significant heterogeneity was present in most of the pooled analyses, but was markedly reduced when analyses were restricted to study reports with high methodology quality scores. Neither this restriction by quality nor the original authors’ adjustments for potential confounding made a substantial difference to the pooled ORs.

Conclusions/interpretation This study provides no evidence of an association between routine vaccinations and childhood type 1 diabetes.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

Association between apolipoprotein E polymorphisms and age-related macular degeneration: a HuGE review and meta-analysis

A possible association between apolipoprotein E polymorphisms and age-related macular degeneration has been investigated numerous times, with conflicting results. A previous analysis pooling results from four studies (Schmidt et al., Ophthalmic Genet 2002;23:209-23) suggested an association, but those investigators did not document allele frequencies, the magnitude of the association, or the possible genetic mode of action. Thus, the authors searched MEDLINE from 1966 to December 2005 for any English-language studies reporting genetic associations. Data and study quality were assessed in duplicate. Pooling was performed while checking for heterogeneity and publication bias. Frequencies of the E2 and E4 alleles in Caucasians were approximately 8% and 15%, respectively. Allele- and genotype-based tests of association indicated a risk effect of up to 20% for E2 and a protective effect of up to 40% for E4. E2 appeared to act in a recessive mode and E4 in a dominant mode. There appears to be a differential effect of the E2 and E4 alleles on the risk of age-related macular degeneration, although the possibility of survivor bias needs to be ruled out more definitively.

Efficacy of experimental treatments compared with standard treatments in non-inferiority trials: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background There is concern that non-inferiority trials might be deliberately designed to conceal that a new treatment is less effective than a standard treatment. In order to test this hypothesis we performed a meta-analysis of non-inferiority trials to assess the average effect of experimental treatments compared with standard treatments. Methods One hundred and seventy non-inferiority treatment trials published in 121 core clinical journals were included. The trials were identified through a search of PubMed (1991 to 20 February 2009). Combined relative risk (RR) from meta-analysis comparing experimental with standard treatments was the main outcome measure. Results The 170 trials contributed a total of 175 independent comparisons of experimental with standard treatments. The combined RR for all 175 comparisons was 0.994 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.978–1.010] using a random-effects model and 1.002 (95% CI 0.996–1.008) using a fixed-effects model. Of the 175 comparisons, experimental treatment was considered to be non-inferior in 130 (74%). The combined RR for these 130 comparisons was 0.995 (95% CI 0.983–1.006) and the point estimate favoured the experimental treatment in 58% (n = 76) and standard treatment in 42% (n = 54). The median non-inferiority margin (RR) pre-specified by trialists was 1.31 [inter-quartile range (IQR) 1.18–1.59]. Conclusion In this meta-analysis of non-inferiority trials the average RR comparing experimental with standard treatments was close to 1. The experimental treatments that gain a verdict of non-inferiority in published trials do not appear to be systematically less effective than the standard treatments. Importantly, publication bias and bias in the design and reporting of the studies cannot be ruled out and may have skewed the study results in favour of the experimental treatments. Further studies are required to examine the importance of such bias.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of factors associated with anthelmintic resistance in sheep.

BACKGROUND Anthelmintic drugs have been widely used in sheep as a cost-effective means for gastro-intestinal nematode (GIN) control. However, growing anthelmintic resistance (AHR) has created a compelling need to identify evidence-based management recommendations that reduce the risk of further development and impact of AHR. OBJECTIVE To identify, critically assess, and synthesize available data from primary research on factors associated with AHR in sheep. METHODS Publications reporting original observational or experimental research on selected factors associated with AHR in sheep GINs and published after 1974, were identified through two processes. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Agricola, CAB) and Web of Science (a collection of databases) were searched for potentially relevant publications. Additional publications were identified through consultation with experts, manual search of references of included publications and conference proceedings, and information solicited from small ruminant practitioner list-serves. Two independent investigators screened abstracts for relevance. Relevant publications were assessed for risk of systematic bias. Where sufficient data were available, random-effects Meta-Analyses (MAs) were performed to estimate the pooled Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) of AHR for factors reported in ≥2 publications. RESULTS Of the 1712 abstracts screened for eligibility, 131 were deemed relevant for full publication review. Thirty publications describing 25 individual studies (15 observational studies, 7 challenge trials, and 3 controlled trials) were included in the qualitative synthesis and assessed for systematic bias. Unclear (i.e. not reported, or unable to assess) or high risk of selection bias and confounding bias was found in 93% (14/15) and 60% (9/15) of the observational studies, respectively, while unclear risk of selection bias was identified in all of the trials. Ten independent studies were included in the quantitative synthesis, and MAs were performed for five factors. Only high frequency of treatment was a significant risk factor (OR=4.39; 95% CI=1.59, 12.14), while the remaining 4 variables were marginally significant: mixed-species grazing (OR=1.63; 95% CI=0.66, 4.07); flock size (OR=1.02; 95% CI=0.97, 1.07); use of long-acting drug formulations (OR=2.85; 95% CI=0.79, 10.24); and drench-and-shift pasture management (OR=4.08; 95% CI=0.75, 22.16). CONCLUSIONS While there is abundant literature on the topic of AHR in sheep GINs, few studies have explicitly investigated the association between putative risk or protective factors and AHR. Consequently, several of the current recommendations on parasite management are not evidence-based. Moreover, many of the studies included in this review had a high or unclear risk of systematic bias, highlighting the need to improve study design and/or reporting of future research carried out in this field.

Non-selective beta-blockers may reduce risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS Non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB) are used in patients with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices. Experimental data suggest that NSBB inhibit angiogenesis and reduce bacterial translocation, which may prevent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We therefore assessed the effect of NSBB on HCC by performing a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomized trials. METHODS Electronic and manual searches were combined. Authors were contacted for unpublished data. Included trials assessed NSBB for patients with cirrhosis; the control group could receive any other intervention than NSBB. Fixed and random effects meta-analyses were performed with I(2) as a measure of heterogeneity. Subgroup, sensitivity, regression and sequential analyses were performed to evaluate heterogeneity, bias and the robustness of the results after adjusting for multiple testing. RESULTS Twenty-three randomized trials on 2618 patients with cirrhosis were included, of which 12 reported HCC incidence and 23 reported HCC mortality. The mean duration of follow-up was 26 months (range 8-82). In total, 47 of 694 patients randomized to NSBB developed HCC vs 65 of 697 controls (risk difference -0.026; 95% CI-0.052 to -0.001; number needed to treat 38 patients). There was no heterogeneity (I(2) = 7%) or evidence of small study effects (Eggers P = 0.402). The result was not confirmed in sequential analysis, which suggested that 3719 patients were needed to achieve the required information size. NSBB did not reduce HCC-related mortality (RD -0.011; 95% CI -0.040 to 0.017). CONCLUSIONS Non-selective beta-blockers may prevent HCC in patients with cirrhosis.

Psychological therapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Panic disorder is characterised by the presence of recurrent unexpected panic attacks, discrete periods of fear or anxiety that have a rapid onset and include symptoms such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating and shaking. Panic disorder is common in the general population, with a lifetime prevalence of 1% to 4%. A previous Cochrane meta-analysis suggested that psychological therapy (either alone or combined with pharmacotherapy) can be chosen as a first-line treatment for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. However, it is not yet clear whether certain psychological therapies can be considered superior to others. In order to answer this question, in this review we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA), in which we compared eight different forms of psychological therapy and three forms of a control condition. OBJECTIVES To assess the comparative efficacy and acceptability of different psychological therapies and different control conditions for panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia, in adults. SEARCH METHODS We conducted the main searches in the CCDANCTR electronic databases (studies and references registers), all years to 16 March 2015. We conducted complementary searches in PubMed and trials registries. Supplementary searches included reference lists of included studies, citation indexes, personal communication to the authors of all included studies and grey literature searches in OpenSIGLE. We applied no restrictions on date, language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on adults with a formal diagnosis of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. We considered the following psychological therapies: psychoeducation (PE), supportive psychotherapy (SP), physiological therapies (PT), behaviour therapy (BT), cognitive therapy (CT), cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), third-wave CBT (3W) and psychodynamic therapies (PD). We included both individual and group formats. Therapies had to be administered face-to-face. The comparator interventions considered for this review were: no treatment (NT), wait list (WL) and attention/psychological placebo (APP). For this review we considered four short-term (ST) outcomes (ST-remission, ST-response, ST-dropouts, ST-improvement on a continuous scale) and one long-term (LT) outcome (LT-remission/response). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS As a first step, we conducted a systematic search of all relevant papers according to the inclusion criteria. For each outcome, we then constructed a treatment network in order to clarify the extent to which each type of therapy and each comparison had been investigated in the available literature. Then, for each available comparison, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. Subsequently, we performed a network meta-analysis in order to synthesise the available direct evidence with indirect evidence, and to obtain an overall effect size estimate for each possible pair of therapies in the network. Finally, we calculated a probabilistic ranking of the different psychological therapies and control conditions for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS We identified 1432 references; after screening, we included 60 studies in the final qualitative analyses. Among these, 54 (including 3021 patients) were also included in the quantitative analyses. With respect to the analyses for the first of our primary outcomes, (short-term remission), the most studied of the included psychological therapies was CBT (32 studies), followed by BT (12 studies), PT (10 studies), CT (three studies), SP (three studies) and PD (two studies).The quality of the evidence for the entire network was found to be low for all outcomes. The quality of the evidence for CBT vs NT, CBT vs SP and CBT vs PD was low to very low, depending on the outcome. The majority of the included studies were at unclear risk of bias with regard to the randomisation process. We found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of attrition bias and detection bias. We also found selective outcome reporting bias to be present and we strongly suspected publication bias. Finally, we found almost half of the included studies to be at high risk of researcher allegiance bias.Overall the networks appeared to be well connected, but were generally underpowered to detect any important disagreement between direct and indirect evidence. The results showed the superiority of psychological therapies over the WL condition, although this finding was amplified by evident small study effects (SSE). The NMAs for ST-remission, ST-response and ST-improvement on a continuous scale showed well-replicated evidence in favour of CBT, as well as some sparse but relevant evidence in favour of PD and SP, over other therapies. In terms of ST-dropouts, PD and 3W showed better tolerability over other psychological therapies in the short term. In the long term, CBT and PD showed the highest level of remission/response, suggesting that the effects of these two treatments may be more stable with respect to other psychological therapies. However, all the mentioned differences among active treatments must be interpreted while taking into account that in most cases the effect sizes were small and/or results were imprecise. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is no high-quality, unequivocal evidence to support one psychological therapy over the others for the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in adults. However, the results show that CBT - the most extensively studied among the included psychological therapies - was often superior to other therapies, although the effect size was small and the level of precision was often insufficient or clinically irrelevant. In the only two studies available that explored PD, this treatment showed promising results, although further research is needed in order to better explore the relative efficacy of PD with respect to CBT. Furthermore, PD appeared to be the best tolerated (in terms of ST-dropouts) among psychological treatments. Unexpectedly, we found some evidence in support of the possible viability of non-specific supportive psychotherapy for the treatment of panic disorder; however, the results concerning SP should be interpreted cautiously because of the sparsity of evidence regarding this treatment and, as in the case of PD, further research is needed to explore this issue. Behaviour therapy did not appear to be a valid alternative to CBT as a first-line treatment for patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia.

Epidemiology of diabetes and complications among adults in the Republic of Ireland 1998-2015: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Accurate estimates of the burden of diabetes are essential for future planning and evaluation of services. In Ireland, there is no diabetes register and prevalence estimates vary. The aim of this review was to systematically identify and review studies reporting the prevalence of diabetes and complications among adults in Ireland between 1998 and 2015 and to examine trends in prevalence over time. Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out using PubMed and Embase. Diabetes prevalence estimates were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis. Poisson regression was carried out using data from four nationally representative studies to calculate prevalence rates of doctor diagnosed diabetes between 1998 and 2015 and was also used to assess whether the rate of doctor diagnosed diabetes changed over time. Results: Fifteen studies (eight diabetes prevalence and seven complication prevalence) were eligible for inclusion. In adults aged 18 years and over, the national prevalence of doctor diagnosed diabetes significantly increased from 2.2 % in 1998 to 5.2 % in 2015 (p trend ≤ 0.001). The prevalence of diabetes complications ranged widely depending on study population and methodology used (6.5–25.2 % retinopathy; 3.2–32.0 % neuropathy; 2.5-5.2 % nephropathy). Conclusions: Between 1998 and 2015, there was a significant increase in the prevalence of doctor diagnosed diabetes among adults in Ireland. Trends in microvascular and macrovascular complications prevalence could not be examined due to heterogeneity between studies and the limited availability of data. Reliable baseline data are needed to monitor improvements in care over time at a national level. A comprehensive national diabetes register is urgently needed in Ireland.

Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population : a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Hallux valgus (HV) is a foot deformity commonly seen in medical practice, often accompanied by significant functional disability and foot pain. Despite frequent mention in a diverse body of literature, a precise estimate of the prevalence of HV is difficult to ascertain. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate prevalence of HV in the overall population and evaluate the influence of age and gender. METHODS: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and CINAHL) and reference lists of included papers were searched to June 2009 for papers on HV prevalence without language restriction. MeSH terms and keywords were used relating to HV or bunions, prevalence and various synonyms. Included studies were surveys reporting original data for prevalence of HV or bunions in healthy populations of any age group. Surveys reporting prevalence data grouped with other foot deformities and in specific disease groups (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes) were excluded. Two independent investigators quality rated all included papers on the Epidemiological Appraisal Instrument. Data on raw prevalence, population studied and methodology were extracted. Prevalence proportions and the standard error were calculated, and meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 78 papers reporting results of 76 surveys (total 496,957 participants) were included and grouped by study population for meta-analysis. Pooled prevalence estimates for HV were 23% in adults aged 18-65 years (CI: 16.3 to 29.6) and 35.7% in elderly people aged over 65 years (CI: 29.5 to 42.0). Prevalence increased with age and was higher in females [30% (CI: 22 to 38)] compared to males [13% (CI: 9 to 17)]. Potential sources of bias were sampling method, study quality and method of HV diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding the wide variation in estimates, it is evident that HV is prevalent; more so in females and with increasing age. Methodological quality issues need to be addressed in interpreting reports in the literature and in future research.