Lifestyle factors and colorectal cancer risk (1): systematic review and meta-analysis of associations with body mass index

OBJECTIVE: Excess body weight, defined by body mass index (BMI), may increase the risk of colorectal cancer. As a prerequisite to the determination of lifestyle attributable risks, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies to quantify colorectal cancer risk associated with increased BMI and explore for differences by gender, sub-site and study characteristics. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (to December 2007), and other sources, selecting reports based on strict inclusion criteria. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions of study-specific incremental estimates were performed to determine the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) associated with a 5 kg/m(2) increase in BMI. RESULTS: We analysed 29 datasets from 28 articles, including 67,361 incident cases. Higher BMI was associated with colon (RR 1.24, 95% CIs: 1.20-1.28) and rectal (1.09, 1.05-1.14) cancers in men, and with colon cancer (1.09, 1.04-1.12) in women. Associations were stronger in men than in women for colon (P < 0.001) and rectal (P = 0.005) cancers. Associations were generally consistent across geographic populations. Study characteristics and adjustments accounted for only moderate variations of associations. CONCLUSION: Increasing BMI is associated with a modest increased risk of developing colon and rectal cancers, but this modest risk may translate to large attributable proportions in high-prevalence obese populations. Inter-gender differences point to potentially important mechanistic differences, which merit further research.

The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiologic study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of adequate allocation concealment and patient blinding with estimates of treatment benefits in osteoarthritis trials. METHODS: We performed a meta-epidemiologic study of 16 meta-analyses with 175 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or nonintervention control in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. We calculated effect sizes from the differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of followup divided by the pooled SD and compared effect sizes between trials with and trials without adequate methodology. RESULTS: Effect sizes tended to be less beneficial in 46 trials with adequate allocation concealment compared with 112 trials with inadequate or unclear concealment of allocation (difference -0.15; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.31, 0.02). Selection bias associated with inadequate or unclear concealment of allocation was most pronounced in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits (P for interaction < 0.001), meta-analyses with high between-trial heterogeneity (P = 0.009), and meta-analyses of complementary medicine (P = 0.019). Effect sizes tended to be less beneficial in 64 trials with adequate blinding of patients compared with 58 trials without (difference -0.15; 95% CI -0.39, 0.09), but differences were less consistent and disappeared after accounting for allocation concealment. Detection bias associated with a lack of adequate patient blinding was most pronounced for nonpharmacologic interventions (P for interaction < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Results of osteoarthritis trials may be affected by selection and detection bias. Adequate concealment of allocation and attempts to blind patients will minimize these biases.

The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether excluding patients from the analysis of randomised trials are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects and higher heterogeneity between trials. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study based on a collection of meta-analyses of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: 14 meta-analyses including 167 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patient reported pain as an outcome. METHODS: Effect sizes were calculated from differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of follow-up, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Trials were combined by using random effects meta-analysis. Estimates of treatment effects were compared between trials with and trials without exclusions from the analysis, and the impact of restricting meta-analyses to trials without exclusions was assessed. RESULTS: 39 trials (23%) had included all patients in the analysis. In 128 trials (77%) some patients were excluded from the analysis. Effect sizes from trials with exclusions tended to be more beneficial than those from trials without exclusions (difference -0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.04). However, estimates of bias between individual meta-analyses varied considerably (tau(2)=0.07). Tests of interaction between exclusions from the analysis and estimates of treatment effects were positive in five meta-analyses. Stratified analyses indicated that differences in effect sizes between trials with and trials without exclusions were more pronounced in meta-analyses with high between trial heterogeneity, in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits, and in meta-analyses of complementary medicine. Restriction of meta-analyses to trials without exclusions resulted in smaller estimated treatment benefits, larger P values, and considerable decreases in between trial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Excluding patients from the analysis in randomised trials often results in biased estimates of treatment effects, but the extent and direction of bias is unpredictable. Results from intention to treat analyses should always be described in reports of randomised trials. In systematic reviews, the influence of exclusions from the analysis on estimated treatment effects should routinely be assessed.

Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study

OBJECTIVE: To study the inter-observer variation related to extraction of continuous and numerical rating scale data from trial reports for use in meta-analyses. DESIGN: Observer agreement study. DATA SOURCES: A random sample of 10 Cochrane reviews that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD), the protocols for the reviews and the trial reports (n=45) were retrieved. DATA EXTRACTION: Five experienced methodologists and five PhD students independently extracted data from the trial reports for calculation of the first SMD result in each review. The observers did not have access to the reviews but to the protocols, where the relevant outcome was highlighted. The agreement was analysed at both trial and meta-analysis level, pairing the observers in all possible ways (45 pairs, yielding 2025 pairs of trials and 450 pairs of meta-analyses). Agreement was defined as SMDs that differed less than 0.1 in their point estimates or confidence intervals. RESULTS: The agreement was 53% at trial level and 31% at meta-analysis level. Including all pairs, the median disagreement was SMD=0.22 (interquartile range 0.07-0.61). The experts agreed somewhat more than the PhD students at trial level (61% v 46%), but not at meta-analysis level. Important reasons for disagreement were differences in selection of time points, scales, control groups, and type of calculations; whether to include a trial in the meta-analysis; and data extraction errors made by the observers. In 14 out of the 100 SMDs calculated at the meta-analysis level, individual observers reached different conclusions than the originally published review. CONCLUSIONS: Disagreements were common and often larger than the effect of commonly used treatments. Meta-analyses using SMDs are prone to observer variation and should be interpreted with caution. The reliability of meta-analyses might be improved by having more detailed review protocols, more than one observer, and statistical expertise.

Ausschluss von Patienten aus der Analyse: Auswirkungen auf die Ergebnisse randomisierter kontrollierter Studien: Eine meta-epidemiologische Studie

Zielsetzung: Untersuchung, ob der Ausschluss von Patienten aus der statistischen Analyse in randomisierten Studien mit Fehlbewertungen der Wirksamkeit von Behandlungen sowie einer größeren Heterogenität zwischen verschiedenen Studien assoziiert ist. Studiendesign: Meta-epidemiologische Studie auf der Basis einer Sammlung von Metaanalysen randomisierter Studien. Datenquellen: 14 Metaanalysen, die insgesamt 167 Studien berücksichtigten. Diese verglichen die Wirksamkeit therapeutischer Interventionen bei Arthrose des Knie- oder Hüftgelenks mit Kontrollgruppen, die entweder keine Intervention oder Placebo erhielten und verwendeten jeweils Schmerz nach Angaben der Patienten als Endpunkt. Methoden: Zur Berechnung der Effektgrößen wurden die Unterschiede in der durchschnittlichen Schmerzintensität zwischen den Gruppen am Ende durch die gepoolte Standardabweichung dividiert. Die statistische Zusammenfassung der Studien erfolgte durch eine Random-Effects-Metaanalyse. Studien mit und Studien ohne Ausschluss von Patienten aus der statistischen Analyse wurden in Bezug auf die Bewertung der Therapiewirksamkeit gegeneinander verglichen, und die Auswirkungen einer Beschränkung von Metaanalysen auf Studien ohne Patientenausschluss wurden berechnet. Ergebnisse: In 39 Studien (23 %) waren sämtliche Patienten in die Analyse eingeschlossen. In 128 Studien (77 %) wurden Patienten von der Analyse ausgeschlossen. Die Effektgrößen waren in Studien mit Patientenausschluss tendenziell vorteilhafter als in Studien ohne Patientenausschluss (Differenz –0,13; 95-%-Konfidenzintervall –0,29 bis 0,04). Allerdings variierten die Schätzungen der Verzerrung zwischen einzelnen Metaanalysen erheblich (τ2 = 0,07). Untersuchungen der Interaktion zwischen Ausschluss aus der Analyse und Bewertung der Therapiewirksamkeit waren in fünf Metaanalysen positiv. Stratifizierte Analysen zeigten, dass Unterschiede in Bezug auf Effektgrößen zwischen Studien mit versus Studien ohne Patientenausschluss stärker ausfielen in Metaanalysen mit großer Heterogenität zwischen den einzelnen Studien, in Metaanalysen mit großer geschätzter Therapiewirksamkeit und in Metaanalysen aus dem Bereich der Komplementärmedizin. Beschränkten sich die Metaanalysen auf Studien ohne Patientenausschluss, resultierte dies in geringerer geschätzter Therapiewirksamkeit, größeren p-Werten und einer beträchtlichen Minderung der Heterogenität zwischen den einzelnen Studien. Schlussfolgerungen: Der Ausschluss von Patienten aus der statistischen Analyse in randomisierten Studien führt häufig zu Fehleinschätzungen der Therapiewirkungen. Ausmaß und Richtung dieser Verzerrung sind jedoch unvorhersehbar. Berichte randomisierter Studien sollten grundsätzlich Ergebnisse von Intention-to-treat-Analysen nennen. Systematische Übersichtsarbeiten sollten den Einfluss des Patientenausschlusses von der statistischen Analyse auf die Bewertung der Therapiewirksamkeit routinemäßig prüfen.

Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) emerged as a promising test in the diagnosis of prostate cancer and showed encouraging results. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to meta-analyse the diagnostic accuracy of combined MRI/MRSI in prostate cancer and to explore risk profiles with highest benefit. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The authors searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library, and the authors screened reference lists and contacted experts. There were no language restrictions. The last search was performed in August 2008. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 31 test-accuracy studies (1765 patients); 16 studies (17 populations) with a total of 581 patients were suitable for meta-analysis. Nine combined MRI/MRSI studies (10 populations) examining men with pathologically confirmed prostate cancer (297 patients; 1518 specimens) had a pooled sensitivity and specificity on prostate subpart level of 68% (95% CI, 56-78%) and 85% (95% CI, 78-90%), respectively. Compared with patients at high risk for clinically relevant cancer (six studies), sensitivity was lower in low-risk patients (four studies) (58% [46-69%] vs 74% [58-85%]; p>0.05) but higher for specificity (91% [86-94%] vs 78% [70-84%]; p<0.01). Seven studies examining patients with suspected prostate cancer at combined MRI/MRSI (284 patients) had an overall pooled sensitivity and specificity on patients level of 82% (59-94%) and 88% (80-95%). In the low-risk group (five studies) these values were 75% (39-93%) and 91% (77-97%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of small studies suggest that MRI combined with MRSI could be a rule-in test for low-risk patients. This finding needs further confirmation in larger studies and cost-effectiveness needs to be established.

In search of optimal compression therapy for venous leg ulcers: a meta-analysis of studies comparing diverse [corrected] bandages with specifically designed stockings

OBJECTIVE: In search of an optimal compression therapy for venous leg ulcers, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing compression systems based on stockings (MCS) with divers bandages. METHODS: RCT were retrieved from six sources and reviewed independently. The primary endpoint, completion of healing within a defined time frame, and the secondary endpoints, time to healing, and pain were entered into a meta-analysis using the tools of the Cochrane Collaboration. Additional subjective endpoints were summarized. RESULTS: Eight RCT (published 1985-2008) fulfilled the predefined criteria. Data presentation was adequate and showed moderate heterogeneity. The studies included 692 patients (21-178/study, mean age 61 years, 56% women). Analyzed were 688 ulcerated legs, present for 1 week to 9 years, sizing 1 to 210 cm(2). The observation period ranged from 12 to 78 weeks. Patient and ulcer characteristics were evenly distributed in three studies, favored the stocking groups in four, and the bandage group in one. Data on the pressure exerted by stockings and bandages were reported in seven and two studies, amounting to 31-56 and 27-49 mm Hg, respectively. The proportion of ulcers healed was greater with stockings than with bandages (62.7% vs 46.6%; P < .00001). The average time to healing (seven studies, 535 patients) was 3 weeks shorter with stockings (P = .0002). In no study performed bandages better than MCS. Pain was assessed in three studies (219 patients) revealing an important advantage of stockings (P < .0001). Other subjective parameters and issues of nursing revealed an advantage of MCS as well. CONCLUSIONS: Leg compression with stockings is clearly better than compression with bandages, has a positive impact on pain, and is easier to use.

Critical appraisal of meta-analyses: an introductory guide for the practicing surgeon

ABSTRACT: Meta-analyses are an essential tool of clinical research. Meta-analyses of individual randomized controlled trials frequently constitute the highest possible level of scientific evidence for a given research question and allow surgeons to rapidly gain a comprehensive understanding of an important clinical issue. Moreover, meta-analyses often serve as cornerstones for evidence-based surgery, treatment guidelines, and knowledge transfer. Given the importance of meta-analyses to the medical (and surgical) knowledge base, it is of cardinal importance that surgeons have a basic grasp of the principles that guide a high-quality meta-analysis, and be able to weigh objectively the advantages and potential pitfalls of this clinical research tool. Unfortunately, surgeons are often ill-prepared to successfully conduct, critically appraise, and correctly interpret meta-analyses. The objective of this educational review is to provide surgeons with a brief introductory overview of the knowledge and skills required for understanding and critically appraising surgical meta-analyses as well as assessing their implications for their own surgical practice.

Efficacy pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis

Background: Clinical trials and meta-analyses have produced conflicting results of the efficacy of unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in adults. We sought to evaluate the vaccine’s efficacy on clinical outcomes as well as the methodologic quality of the trials. Methods: We searched several databases and all bibliographies of reviews and meta-analyses for clinical trials that compared pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine with a control. We examined rates of pneumonia and death, taking the methodologic quality of the trials into consideration. Results: We included 22 trials involving 101 507 participants: 11 trials reported on presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia, 19 on all-cause pneumonia and 12 on allcause mortality. The current 23-valent vaccine was used in 8 trials. The relative risk (RR) was 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.96) for presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia and 0.73 (95% CI 0.56–0.94) for all-cause pneumonia. There was significant heterogeneity between the trials reporting on presumptive pneumonia (I2 = 74%, p < 0.001) and between those reporting on all-cause pneumonia (I2 = 90%, p < 0.001). The RR for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% CI 0.87–1.09), with moderate heterogeneity between trials (I2 = 44%, p = 0.053). Trial quality, especially regarding double blinding, explained a substantial proportion of the heterogeneity in the trials reporting on presumptive pneumonia and all-cause pneumonia. There was little evidence of vaccine protection in trials of higher methodologic quality (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.75–1.92, for presumptive pneumonia; and 1.19, 95% CI 0.95–1.49, for allcause pneumonia in double-blind trials; p for heterogeneity > 0.05). The results for all-cause mortality in double-blind trials were similar to those in all trials combined. There was little evidence of vaccine protection among elderly patients or adults with chronic illness in analyses of all trials (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78–1.38, for presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia; 0.89, 95% CI 0.69–1.14, for all-cause pneumonia; and 1.00, 95% CI 0.87–1.14, for all-cause mortality). Interpretation: Pneumococcal vaccination does not appear to be effective in preventing pneumonia, even in populations for whom the vaccine is currently recommended.