Book Reviews:The Dail in the 21st century

Book Review

Book Reviews

Birgit Jentsch and Myriam Simard (eds.), International Migration and Rural Areas:
Cross-National Comparative Perspectives, Farnham: Ashgate, 2009, 218pp, (ISBN:
978-0-7546-7484-9), (cloth).

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA ( Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and metaanalyses.

Five authors reply

We read with interest the comments offered by Drs. Hughes and Bradley (1) on our systematic review (2). Four single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), rs9332739 and rs547154 in the complement component 2 gene (C2) and rs4151667 and rs641153 in the complement factor B gene (CFB), were pooled. Hughes and Bradley point out that we omitted the most common variant, rs12614. In fact, rs12614 is in high linkage disequilibrium (LD) with rs641153, which was included, and the major allele of both of these SNPs is in the range of 90% (population code, CEU, in the International HapMap Project (http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/)). Moreover, our review was initiated in September 2010, at which point only 4 studies had published associations with rs12614, whereas 14 studies (n = 11,378) were available for rs641153. While it is true that both SNPs are better analyzed as a haplotype, these data were simply not available for pooling.
Hughes and Bradley also point out that we obtained and pooled new data that were not previously published. While it is recommended that contact with authors be completed as part of a comprehensive meta-analysis, we acknowledge that these additional data were not previously published and peer reviewed and, hence, do not have the same level of transparency. However, given that sample collections often increase over time and that the instrumentation for genotyping is continually improving, we thought that it would be advantageous to use the most recent information; this is a subjective decision.
We also agree that the allele frequencies given by Kaur et al. (3) were exactly opposite to those expected and were suggestive of strand flipping. However, we specifically queried this with the lead author on 2 separate occasions and were assured it was not.
Hughes and Bradley do make an interesting suggestion that SNPs in high LD should be used as a gauge of genotyping quality in HuGE reviews. This is an interesting idea but difficult to put into practice as the r2 parameter they propose as a measure of LD has some unusual properties. Although r2 is a measure of LD, it is also linked to the allele frequency; even small differences in allele frequencies between 2 linked SNPs can reduce the r2 dramatically. Wray (4) explored these effects and found that, at a baseline allele frequency of 10%, even a difference in allele frequency between 2 SNPs as small as 2% can drop the r2 value below 0.8. This degree of allele frequency difference is consistent with what could be expected for sampling error. Furthermore, when we look at 2 linked dialleleic SNPs, giving 4 possible haplotypes, the absence of 1 haplotype dramatically reduces r2, despite the 2 loci being in high LD as measured by D'. In fact, this is the situation for rs12614 and rs641153, where the low frequency of 1 haplotype means that the r2 is 0.01 but the D' is 1.
Hughes and Bradley also suggest consideration of genotype call rate restrictions as an inclusion criterion for metaanalysis. This would be more appropriate when focusing on genetic variants per se, as considered within the context of a genome-wide association study or other specific genetic analysis where large numbers of SNPs are evaluated (5).
The concerns raised by Hughes and Bradley reflect the limited ability of a meta-analysis based on summary data to tease out inconsistencies best identified at the individual level. We agree that SNPs in LD should be evaluated, but this will not necessarily be straightforward. A move to make genetic data sets publicly available, as in the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ gap), is a step in the right direction for greater transparency.