Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To examine the presence and extent of small study effects in clinical osteoarthritis research. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 13 meta-analyses including 153 randomised trials (41 605 patients) that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patients’ reported pain as an outcome. Methods We compared estimated benefits of treatment between large trials (at least 100 patients per arm) and small trials, explored funnel plots supplemented with lines of predicted effects and contours of significance, and used three approaches to estimate treatment effects: meta-analyses including all trials irrespective of sample size, meta-analyses restricted to large trials, and treatment effects predicted for large trials. Results On average, treatment effects were more beneficial in small than in large trials (difference in effect sizes −0.21, 95% confidence interval −0.34 to −0.08, P=0.001). Depending on criteria used, six to eight funnel plots indicated small study effects. In six of 13 meta-analyses, the overall pooled estimate suggested a clinically relevant, significant benefit of treatment, whereas analyses restricted to large trials and predicted effects in large trials yielded smaller non-significant estimates. Conclusions Small study effects can often distort results of meta-analyses. The influence of small trials on estimated treatment effects should be routinely assessed.

Methods to convert continuous outcomes into odds ratios of treatment response and numbers needed to treat: meta-epidemiological study

Clinicians find standardized mean differences (SMDs) calculated from continuous outcomes difficult to interpret. Our objective was to determine the performance of methods in converting SMDs or means to odds ratios of treatment response and numbers needed to treat (NNTs) as more intuitive measures of treatment effect.

Epidemiological study of pestiviruses in South American camelids in Switzerland

BACKGROUND: In the context of the ongoing eradication campaign for bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) in cattle in Switzerland, the role of South American camelids (SAC) as a possible virus reservoir needed to be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To assess and characterize the prevalence of pestivirus infections in SAC in Switzerland. ANIMALS: Serum samples collected from 348 animals (40 herds) in 2008 and from 248 animals (39 herds) in 2000 were examined for antibodies against pestiviruses and for the presence of BVDV viral RNA. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using stratified, representative herd sampling. An indirect BVDV-ELISA was used to analyze serum samples for pestivirus antibodies, and positive samples underwent a serum neutralization test (SNT). Real-time RT-PCR to detect pestiviral RNA was carried out in all animals from herds with at least 1 seropositive animal. RESULTS: In 2008, the overall prevalence of animals positive for antibodies (ELISA) and pestiviral RNA or was 5.75 and 0%, respectively. In 2000, the corresponding prevalences were 3.63 and 0%, respectively. The seroprevalences (SNT) for BVDV, border disease virus or undetermined pestiviruses were estimated to be 0, 1.73, and 4.02% in 2008, and 0.40, 1.21, and 2.02% in 2000, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: At the present time, SAC appear to represent a negligible risk of re-infection for the BVDV eradication program in cattle in Switzerland.

[A descriptive epidemiological study on canine babesiosis in the Lake Geneva region]

A descriptive study was carried out in the district of the Lake Geneva between March 1, 2005 and August 31,2006 to assess the incidence and prevalence of canine babesiosis, to genotype the Babesia species occurring, to assess the most frequently clinical signs found and to address the potential of autochthonous transmission. This included a data assessment on the different tick-populations occurring in the area and on the prevalence of Babesia-DNA in these ticks. A total of 56 veterinary practices participated in the study. By blood smear and PCR, Babesia canis canis was found in 12 out of 21 cases with suspected babesiosis. In an additional 13th case, the parasite could only be detected by PCR. All autochthonous cases originated from the Western part of the Lake Geneva region. Clinical signs in affected dogs included inappetence, apathy, anemia, fever, hemoglobinuria and thrombocytopenia. There were no risk factors with regard to age, sex and breed. Most cases were diagnosed during the spring periods of 2005 and 2006 (11 cases) and two cases in autumn 2005, coinciding with the main activity period of Dermacentor reticulatus, the main vector of B. canis canis. A total of 495 ticks were collected on patients by the veterinarians, 473 were identified as Ixodes sp., 7 as Rhipicephalus sanguineus and 15 as Dermacentor reticulatus. While Ixodes sp. was found in the whole study area, D. reticulatus and R. sanguineus occurred only in the Western part till Lausanne. PCR and sequencing yielded B. canis canis positivity in 3 D. reticulatus specimen, these three ticks were collected from two different dogs both suffering from babesiosis. All R. sanguineus were negative by Babesia-PCR. Global warming, ecological changes in the potential habitat of ticks, increasing host- and vector-populations and increasing mobility of dog owners may be responsible for an emergence situation of infection risk for Babesia spp. by time. E.g., Dermacentor reticulatus has become autochtonously prevalent already till Lausanne in the Lake Geneva region, and further surveillance is suggested to tackle this problem.

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.

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.

Combining follow-up and change data is valid in meta-analyses of continuous outcomes: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE To investigate whether it is valid to combine follow-up and change data when conducting meta-analyses of continuous outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee/hip, which assessed patient-reported pain. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) based on follow-up and change data, and pooled within-trial differences in SMDs. We also derived pooled SMDs indicating the largest treatment effect within a trial (optimistic selection of SMDs) and derived pooled SMDs from the estimate indicating the smallest treatment effect within a trial (pessimistic selection of SMDs). RESULTS A total of 21 meta-analyses with 189 trials with 292 randomized comparisons in 41,256 patients were included. On average, SMDs were 0.04 standard deviation units more beneficial when follow-up values were used (difference in SMDs: -0.04; 95% confidence interval: -0.13, 0.06; P=0.44). In 13 meta-analyses (62%), there was a relevant difference in clinical and/or significance level between optimistic and pessimistic pooled SMDs. CONCLUSION On average, there is no relevant difference between follow-up and change data SMDs, and combining these estimates in meta-analysis is generally valid. Decision on which type of data to use when both follow-up and change data are available should be prespecified in the meta-analysis protocol.

Effects of study precision and risk of bias in networks of interventions: a network meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND Empirical research has illustrated an association between study size and relative treatment effects, but conclusions have been inconsistent about the association of study size with the risk of bias items. Small studies give generally imprecisely estimated treatment effects, and study variance can serve as a surrogate for study size. METHODS We conducted a network meta-epidemiological study analyzing 32 networks including 613 randomized controlled trials, and used Bayesian network meta-analysis and meta-regression models to evaluate the impact of trial characteristics and study variance on the results of network meta-analysis. We examined changes in relative effects and between-studies variation in network meta-regression models as a function of the variance of the observed effect size and indicators for the adequacy of each risk of bias item. Adjustment was performed both within and across networks, allowing for between-networks variability. RESULTS Imprecise studies with large variances tended to exaggerate the effects of the active or new intervention in the majority of networks, with a ratio of odds ratios of 1.83 (95% CI: 1.09,3.32). Inappropriate or unclear conduct of random sequence generation and allocation concealment, as well as lack of blinding of patients and outcome assessors, did not materially impact on the summary results. Imprecise studies also appeared to be more prone to inadequate conduct. CONCLUSIONS Compared to more precise studies, studies with large variance may give substantially different answers that alter the results of network meta-analyses for dichotomous outcomes.

PEDro or Cochrane to Assess the Quality of Clinical Trials? A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

OBJECTIVE There is debate on how the methodological quality of clinical trials should be assessed. We compared trials of physical therapy (PT) judged to be of adequate quality based on summary scores from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale with trials judged to be of adequate quality by Cochrane Risk of Bias criteria. DESIGN Meta-epidemiological study within Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. METHODS Meta-analyses of PT trials were identified in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. For each trial PeDro and Cochrane assessments were extracted from the PeDro and Cochrane databases. Adequate quality was defined as adequate generation of random sequence, concealment of allocation, and blinding of outcome assessors (Cochrane criteria) or as trials with a PEDro summary score ≥5 or ≥6 points. We combined trials of adequate quality using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS Forty-one Cochrane reviews and 353 PT trials were included. All meta-analyses included trials with PEDro scores ≥5, 37 (90.2%) included trials with PEDro scores ≥6 and only 22 (53.7%) meta-analyses included trials of adequate quality according to the Cochrane criteria. Agreement between PeDro and Cochrane was poor for PeDro scores of ≥5 points (kappa = 0.12; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.16) and slight for ≥6 points (kappa 0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.32). When combining effect sizes of trials deemed to be of adequate quality according to PEDro or Cochrane criteria, we found that a substantial difference in the combined effect size (≥0.15) was evident in 9 (22%) out of the 41 meta-analyses for PEDro cutoff ≥5 and 10 (24%) for cutoff ≥6. CONCLUSIONS The PeDro and Cochrane approaches lead to different sets of trials of adequate quality, and different combined treatment estimates from meta-analyses of these trials. A consistent approach to assessing RoB in trials of physical therapy should be adopted.

What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE To determine if adequacy of randomisation and allocation concealment is associated with changes in effect sizes (ES) when comparing physical therapy (PT) trials with and without these methodological characteristics. DESIGN Meta-epidemiological study. PARTICIPANTS A random sample of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in meta-analyses in the PT discipline were identified. INTERVENTION Data extraction including assessments of random sequence generation and allocation concealment was conducted independently by two reviewers. To determine the association between sequence generation, and allocation concealment and ES, a two-level analysis was conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES association between random sequence generation and allocation concealment and ES in PT trials. RESULTS 393 trials included in 43 meta-analyses, analysing 44 622 patients contributed to this study. Adequate random sequence generation and appropriate allocation concealment were accomplished in only 39.7% and 11.5% of PT trials, respectively. Although trials with inappropriate allocation concealment tended to have an overestimate treatment effect when compared with trials with adequate concealment of allocation, the difference was non-statistically significant (ES=0.12; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.30). When pooling our results with those of Nuesch et al, we obtained a pooled statistically significant value (ES=0.14; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.26). There was no difference in ES in trials with appropriate or inappropriate random sequence generation (ES=0.02; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.15). CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that when evaluating risk of bias of primary RCTs in PT area, systematic reviewers and clinicians implementing research into practice should pay attention to these biases since they could exaggerate treatment effects. Systematic reviewers should perform sensitivity analysis including trials with low risk of bias in these domains as primary analysis and/or in combination with less restrictive analyses. Authors and editors should make sure that allocation concealment and random sequence generation are properly reported in trial reports.

G870A polymorphism of cyclin D1 gene influences cancer risk - From epidemiological study to mechanism analysis

Alternate splicing of the cyclin D1 gene gives rise to transcript a and b which encode two protein isoforms cyclin D1a and cyclin D1b. Through testing transcript a and transcript b in a series of human samples, we found that cyclin D1 transcript b is ubiquitously expressed as transcript a but in the lower abundance compared to transcript a. Epidemiological studies have reported that the cyclin D1 gene (CCND1) G870A polymorphism influences the risk for a variety of cancer. In this investigation, we examined the cyclin D1b levels in tumor samples with different genotypes and found that higher levels of cyclin D1b are expressed from the A allele than the G allele. Cyclin D1 is known as a cell cycle regulator facilitating the progression of the cell cycle from G1 to S phase in response to the mitogenic signals. It also interacts with several transcription factors and transcriptional coregulators to modulate their activities. It has been reported that cyclin D1a can substitute for estrogen to activate estrogen receptor α (ERα) mediated transcription and can induce the proliferation of estrogen responsive tissues. However the biological role of cyclin D1b in ERα transcriptional regulation has not been previously explored. In this study, we determined that cyclin D1b antagonizes the action of cyclin D1a on ERα mediated transcription. Cell proliferation assays provided the evidence that cyclin D1b negatively regulates estrogen responsive breast cancer cell growth. Taken together, our findings show that the CCND1 G870A polymorphism is correlated with increased levels of cyclin D1b and that cyclin D1b antagonizes the action of cyclin D1a on ERα mediated transcription providing evidence for the mechanism by which the CCND1 G870A polymorphism may be protective in certain types of breast cancer. ^