Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome. DESIGN: Combined analysis of data from three meta-epidemiological studies based on collections of meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or non-blinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates. RESULTS: In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and non-drug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses.

What happens to the bone flap? Long-term outcome after reimplantation of cryoconserved bone flaps in a consecutive series of 92 patients.

BACKGROUND Reimplantation of cryoconserved autologous bone flaps is a standard procedure after decompressive craniotomies. Aseptic necrosis and resorption are the most frequent complications of this procedure. At present there is no consensus regarding the definition of the relevant extent and indication for surgical revision. The objective of this retrospective analysis was to identify the incidence of bone flap resorption and the optimal duration of follow-up. METHODS Between February 2009 and March 2012, 100 cryoconserved autologous bone flaps were reimplanted at the Department of Neurosurgery, Inselspital Bern. Three patients were not available for follow-up, and five patients died before follow-up. All patients underwent follow-up at 6 weeks and a second follow-up more than 12 months postoperatively. A clinical and CT-based score was developed for judgment of relevance and decision making for surgical revision. RESULTS Mean follow-up period was 21.6 months postoperatively (range: 12 to 47 months); 48.9 % (45/92) of patients showed no signs of bone flap resorption, 20.7 % (19/92) showed minor resorption with no need for surgical revision, and 30.4 % (28/92) showed major resorption (in 4 % of these the bone flap was unstable or collapsed). CONCLUSIONS Aseptic necrosis and resorption of reimplanted autologous bone flaps occurred more frequently in our series of patients than in most reports in the literature. Most cases were identified between 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Clinical observation or CT scans of patients with autologous bone flaps are recommended for at least 12 months. Patient-specific implants may be preferable to autologous bone flaps.