Variability of relative treatment effect among populations with low, moderate and high control group event rates: a meta-epidemiological study

被引:0
|
作者
Murad, M. Hassan [1 ]
Wang, Zhen [1 ]
Xiao, Mengli [2 ]
Chu, Haitao [3 ]
Lin, Lifeng [4 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Evidence Based Practice Ctr, Kern Ctr Sci Healthcare Delivery, 200 First ST SW, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] Univ Colorado Anschutz Med Campus, Dept Biostat & Informat, Aurora, CO USA
[3] Pfizer Inc, Stat Res & Data Sci Ctr, New York, NY USA
[4] Univ Arizona, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Tucson, AZ USA
关键词
Meta-analysis; Baseline risk; Heterogeneity; Subgroup analysis; Portability; Measurement error; Mathematical coupling; DEBATE QUESTIONABLE UTILITY; RISK; METAANALYSIS; MODELS;
D O I
10.1186/s12874-024-02388-y
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background The current practice in guideline development is to use the control group event rate (CR) as a surrogate of baseline risk and to assume portability of the relative treatment effect across populations with low, moderate and high baseline risk. We sought to emulate this practice in a very large sample of meta-analyses. Methods We retrieved data from all meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2003-2020) that evaluated a binary outcome, reported 2 x 2 data for each individual study and included at least 4 studies. We excluded studies with no events. We conducted meta-analyses with odds ratios and relative risks and performed subgroup analyses based on tertiles of CR. In sensitivity analyses, we evaluated the use of total event rate (TR) instead of CR and using quartiles instead of tertiles. Results The analysis included 2,531 systematic reviews (27,692 meta-analyses, 226,975 studies, 25,669,783 patients).The percentages of meta-analyses with statistically significant interaction (P < 0.05) based on CR tertile or quartile ranged 12-18% across various sensitivity analyses. This percentage increased as the number of studies or range of CR per meta-analysis increased, reflecting increased power of the subgroup test. The percentages of meta-analyses with statistically significant interaction (P < 0.05) with TR quantiles were lower than those with CR but remained higher than expected by chance. Conclusion This analysis suggests that when CR or TR are used as surrogates for baseline risk, relative treatment effects may not be portable across populations with varying baseline risks in many meta-analyses. Categroization of the continuous CR variable and not addressing measurement error limit inferences from such analyses and imply that CR is an undesirable source for baseline risk. Guideline developers and decision-makers should be provided with relative and absolute treatment effects that are conditioned on the baseline risk or derived from studies with similar baseline risk to their target populations.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 12 条
  • [1] Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study
    Agnès Dechartres
    Philippe Ravaud
    Ignacio Atal
    Carolina Riveros
    Isabelle Boutron
    BMC Medicine, 14
  • [2] Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study
    Dechartres, Agnes
    Ravaud, Philippe
    Atal, Ignacio
    Riveros, Carolina
    Boutron, Isabelle
    BMC MEDICINE, 2016, 14
  • [3] Bias and small-study effects influence treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study in oral medicine
    Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.
    Antonoglou, Georgios N.
    Tsiranidou, Elli
    Jepsen, Soren
    Jaeger, Andreas
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 67 (09) : 984 - 992
  • [4] A meta-epidemiological study on the reported treatment effect of pregabalin in neuropathic pain trials over time
    Cheng, Emma T. L.
    Cheik-Hussein, Mohammad
    Lin, Noelle
    Lewin, Adriane M.
    McAuley, James H.
    Harris, Ian A.
    PLOS ONE, 2023, 18 (01):
  • [5] Impact of Selection Bias on Treatment Effect Size Estimates in Randomized Trials of Oral Health Interventions: A Meta-epidemiological Study
    Saltaji, H.
    Armijo-Olivo, S.
    Cummings, G. G.
    Amin, M.
    da Costa, B. R.
    Flores-Mir, C.
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2018, 97 (01) : 5 - 13
  • [6] Bias in the measurement of the outcome is associated with effect sizes in randomized clinical trials on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a meta-epidemiological study
    Innocenti, Tiziano
    Hayden, Jill A.
    Salvioli, Stefano
    Giagio, Silvia
    Piano, Leonardo
    Cosentino, Carola
    Brindisino, Fabrizio
    Feller, Daniel
    Ogilvie, Rachel
    Gianola, Silvia
    Castellini, Greta
    Bargeri, Silvia
    Twisk, Jos W. R.
    Ostelo, Raymond W.
    Chiarotto, Alessandro
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2023, 162 : 145 - 155
  • [7] Does Type of Sponsorship of Randomized Controlled Trials Influence Treatment Effect Size Estimates in Rehabilitation A Meta-Epidemiological Study
    Fuentes, Jorge
    Armijo-Olivo, Susan
    da Costa, Bruno R.
    Ha, Christine
    Saltaji, Humam
    Arenti, Chiara
    Negrini, Stefano
    Cummings, Greta G.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION, 2020, 99 (10) : 909 - 916
  • [8] INFLUENCE OF SPONSORSHIP BIAS ON TREATMENT EFFECT SIZE ESTIMATES IN RANDOMIZED TRIALS OF ORAL HEALTH INTERVENTIONS: A META-EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY
    Saltaji, Humam
    Armijo-Olivo, Susan
    Cummings, Greta G.
    Amin, Maryam
    Major, Paul W.
    da Costa, Bruno R.
    Flores-Mir, Carlos
    JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTAL PRACTICE, 2021, 21 (02)
  • [9] Per-Protocol analyses produced larger treatment effect sizes than intention to treat: a meta-epidemiological study
    Mostazir, Mohammod
    Taylor, Gordon
    Henley, William Edward
    Watkins, Edward Robert
    Taylor, Rod S.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2021, 138 : 12 - 21
  • [10] Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study
    Ciani, Oriana
    Buyse, Marc
    Garside, Ruth
    Pavey, Toby
    Stein, Ken
    Sterne, Jonathan A. C.
    Taylor, Rod S.
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2013, 346