A Comparison of Statistical Methods for Identifying Out-of-Date Systematic Reviews

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) can provide accurate and reliable evidence, typically about the effectiveness of health interventions. Evidence is dynamic, and if SRs are out-of-date this information may not be useful; it may even be harmful. This study aimed to compare five statistical methods to identify out-of-date SRs.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of SRs registered in the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group (CPCG), published between 2008 and 2010, were considered for inclusion. For each eligible CPCG review, data were extracted and “3-years previous” meta-analyses were assessed for the need to update, given the data from the most recent 3 years. Each of the five statistical methods was used, with random effects analyses throughout the study.

Results

Eighty reviews were included in this study; most were in the area of induction of labour. The numbers of reviews identified as being out-of-date using the Ottawa, recursive cumulative meta-analysis (CMA), and Barrowman methods were 34, 7, and 7 respectively. No reviews were identified as being out-of-date using the simulation-based power method, or the CMA for sufficiency and stability method. The overall agreement among the three discriminating statistical methods was slight (Kappa = 0.14; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.23). The recursive cumulative meta-analysis, Ottawa, and Barrowman methods were practical according to the study criteria.

Conclusion

Our study shows that three practical statistical methods could be applied to examine the need to update SRs.     

Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview

Background

There is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies.

Methods and Findings

Searches were carried out in ten databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, citation searches, and hand-searching key journals, conference proceedings, and Web sites. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from RCTs could be directly compared, using the ratio of odds ratios, with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from observational studies. Nineteen studies, yielding 58 meta-analyses, were identified for inclusion. The pooled ratio of odds ratios of RCTs compared to observational studies was estimated to be 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.93–1.15). There was less discrepancy with larger studies. The symmetric funnel plot suggests that there is no consistent difference between risk estimates from meta-analysis of RCT data and those from meta-analysis of observational studies. In almost all instances, the estimates of harm from meta-analyses of the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped (54/58, 93%). In terms of statistical significance, in nearly two-thirds (37/58, 64%), the results agreed (both studies showing a significant increase or significant decrease or both showing no significant difference). In only one meta-analysis about one adverse effect was there opposing statistical significance.

Conclusions

Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systematic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

The quality of reporting of RCTs used within a postoperative pain management meta-analysis, using the CONSORT statement

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are routinely used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that help inform healthcare and policy decision making. The proper reporting of RCTs is important because it acts as a proxy for health care providers and researchers to appraise the quality of the methodology, conduct and analysis of an RCT. The aims of this study are to analyse the overall quality of reporting in 23 RCTs that were used in a meta-analysis by assessing 3 key methodological items, and to determine factors associated with high quality of reporting. It is hypothesized that studies with larger sample sizes, that have funding reported, that are published in journals with a higher impact factor and that are in journals that have adopted or endorsed the CONSORT statement will be associated with better overall quality of reporting and reporting of key methodological items.

Methods

We systematically reviewed RCTs used within an anesthesiology related post-operative pain management meta-analysis. We included all of the 23 RCTs used, all of which were parallel design that addressed the use of femoral nerve block in improving outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. Data abstraction was done independently by two reviewers. The two main outcomes were: 1) 15 point overall quality of reporting score (OQRS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and 2) 3 point key methodological item score (KMIS) based on allocation concealment, blinding and intention-to-treat analysis.

Results

Twenty-three RCTs were included. The median OQRS was 9.0 (Interquartile Range?=?3). A multivariable regression analysis did not show any significant association between OQRS or KMIS and our four predictor variables hypothesized to improve reporting. The direction and magnitude of our results when compared to similar studies suggest that the sample size and impact factor are associated with improved key methodological item reporting.

Conclusions

The quality of reporting of RCTs used within an anesthesia related meta-analysis is poor to moderate. The information gained from this study should be used by journals to register the urgency for RCTs to be clear and transparent in reporting to help make literature accessible and comparable.     

Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

Background

Systematic reviews with meta-analyses often contain many statistical tests. This multiplicity may increase the risk of type I error. Few attempts have been made to address the problem of statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews. Before the implications are properly considered, the size of the issue deserves clarification. Because of the emphasis on bias evaluation and because of the editorial processes involved, Cochrane reviews may contain more multiplicity than their non-Cochrane counterparts. This study measured the quantity of statistical multiplicity present in a population of systematic reviews and aimed to assess whether this quantity is different in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

Methods/Principal Findings

We selected all the systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group containing a meta-analysis and matched them with comparable non-Cochrane reviews. We counted the number of statistical tests done in each systematic review. The median number of tests overall was 10 (interquartile range (IQR) 6 to 18). The median was 12 in Cochrane and 8 in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in medians 4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0–19.0). The proportion that used an assessment of risk of bias as a reason for doing extra analyses was 42% in Cochrane and 28% in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in proportions 14% (95% CI −8 to 36). The issue of multiplicity was addressed in 6% of all the reviews.

Conclusion/Significance

Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews requires attention. We found more multiplicity in Cochrane reviews than in non-Cochrane reviews. Many of the reasons for the increase in multiplicity may well represent improved methodological approaches and greater transparency, but multiplicity may also cause an increased risk of spurious conclusions. Few systematic reviews, whether Cochrane or non-Cochrane, address the issue of multiplicity.     

A Re-Analysis of the Cochrane Library Data: The Dangers of Unobserved Heterogeneity in Meta-Analyses

Background

Heterogeneity has a key role in meta-analysis methods and can greatly affect conclusions. However, true levels of heterogeneity are unknown and often researchers assume homogeneity. We aim to: a) investigate the prevalence of unobserved heterogeneity and the validity of the assumption of homogeneity; b) assess the performance of various meta-analysis methods; c) apply the findings to published meta-analyses.

Methods and Findings

We accessed 57,397 meta-analyses, available in the Cochrane Library in August 2012. Using simulated data we assessed the performance of various meta-analysis methods in different scenarios. The prevalence of a zero heterogeneity estimate in the simulated scenarios was compared with that in the Cochrane data, to estimate the degree of unobserved heterogeneity in the latter. We re-analysed all meta-analyses using all methods and assessed the sensitivity of the statistical conclusions. Levels of unobserved heterogeneity in the Cochrane data appeared to be high, especially for small meta-analyses. A bootstrapped version of the DerSimonian-Laird approach performed best in both detecting heterogeneity and in returning more accurate overall effect estimates. Re-analysing all meta-analyses with this new method we found that in cases where heterogeneity had originally been detected but ignored, 17–20% of the statistical conclusions changed. Rates were much lower where the original analysis did not detect heterogeneity or took it into account, between 1% and 3%.

Conclusions

When evidence for heterogeneity is lacking, standard practice is to assume homogeneity and apply a simpler fixed-effect meta-analysis. We find that assuming homogeneity often results in a misleading analysis, since heterogeneity is very likely present but undetected. Our new method represents a small improvement but the problem largely remains, especially for very small meta-analyses. One solution is to test the sensitivity of the meta-analysis conclusions to assumed moderate and large degrees of heterogeneity. Equally, whenever heterogeneity is detected, it should not be ignored.     

The Missing Medians: Exclusion of Ordinal Data from Meta-Analyses

Background

Meta-analyses are considered the gold standard of evidence-based health care, and are used to guide clinical decisions and health policy. A major limitation of current meta-analysis techniques is their inability to pool ordinal data. Our objectives were to determine the extent of this problem in the context of neurological rating scales and to provide a solution.

Methods

Using an existing database of clinical trials of oral neuroprotective therapies, we identified the 6 most commonly used clinical rating scales and recorded how data from these scales were reported and analysed. We then identified systematic reviews of studies that used these scales (via the Cochrane database) and recorded the meta-analytic techniques used. Finally, we identified a statistical technique for calculating a common language effect size measure for ordinal data.

Results

We identified 103 studies, with 128 instances of the 6 clinical scales being reported. The majority– 80%–reported means alone for central tendency, with only 13% reporting medians. In analysis, 40% of studies used parametric statistics alone, 34% of studies employed non-parametric analysis, and 26% did not include or specify analysis. Of the 60 systematic reviews identified that included meta-analysis, 88% used mean difference and 22% employed difference in proportions; none included rank-based analysis. We propose the use of a rank-based generalised odds ratio (WMW GenOR) as an assumption-free effect size measure that is easy to compute and can be readily combined in meta-analysis.

Conclusion

There is wide scope for improvement in the reporting and analysis of ordinal data in the literature. We hope that adoption of the WMW GenOR will have the dual effect of improving the reporting of data in individual studies while also increasing the inclusivity (and therefore validity) of meta-analyses.     

A Multi-feature Reproducibility Assessment of Mass Spectral Data in Clinical Proteomic Studies

Background

The use of mass spectrometry to investigate disease-associated proteins among thousands of candidates simultaneously creates challenges with the evaluation of operational and biological variation. Traditional statistical methods, which evaluate reproducibility of a single feature, are likely to provide an inadequate assessment of reproducibility. This paper proposes a systematic approach for the evaluation of the global reproducibility of multidimensional mass spectral data at the post-identification stage.

Methods

The proposed systematic approach combines dimensional reduction and permutation to test and summarize the reproducibility. First, principal component analysis is applied to the mean quantities from identified features of paired replicated samples. An eigenvalue test is used to identify the number of significant principal components which reflect the underlying correlation pattern of the multiple features. Second, a simulation-based permutation test is applied to the derived paired principal components. Third, a modified form of Bland Altman or MA plot is produced to visualize agreement between the replicates. Last, a discordance index is used to summarize the agreement.

Results

Application of this method to data from both a cardiac liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry experiment with iTRAQ labeling and simulation experiments derived from an ovarian cancer SELDI-MS experiment demonstrate that the proposed global reproducibility test is sensitive to the simulated systematic bias when the sample size is above 15. The two proposed test statistics (max t statistics and a sign score statistic) for the permutation tests are shown to be reliable.

Conclusion

The methodology presented in this paper provides a systematic approach for the global measurement of reproducibility in clinical proteomic studies.     

Bayesian meta-analysis models for microarray data: a comparative study

Background

With the growing abundance of microarray data, statistical methods are increasingly needed to integrate results across studies. Two common approaches for meta-analysis of microarrays include either combining gene expression measures across studies or combining summaries such as p-values, probabilities or ranks. Here, we compare two Bayesian meta-analysis models that are analogous to these methods.

Results

Two Bayesian meta-analysis models for microarray data have recently been introduced. The first model combines standardized gene expression measures across studies into an overall mean, accounting for inter-study variability, while the second combines probabilities of differential expression without combining expression values. Both models produce the gene-specific posterior probability of differential expression, which is the basis for inference. Since the standardized expression integration model includes inter-study variability, it may improve accuracy of results versus the probability integration model. However, due to the small number of studies typical in microarray meta-analyses, the variability between studies is challenging to estimate. The probability integration model eliminates the need to model variability between studies, and thus its implementation is more straightforward. We found in simulations of two and five studies that combining probabilities outperformed combining standardized gene expression measures for three comparison values: the percent of true discovered genes in meta-analysis versus individual studies; the percent of true genes omitted in meta-analysis versus separate studies, and the number of true discovered genes for fixed levels of Bayesian false discovery. We identified similar results when pooling two independent studies of Bacillus subtilis. We assumed that each study was produced from the same microarray platform with only two conditions: a treatment and control, and that the data sets were pre-scaled.

Conclusion

The Bayesian meta-analysis model that combines probabilities across studies does not aggregate gene expression measures, thus an inter-study variability parameter is not included in the model. This results in a simpler modeling approach than aggregating expression measures, which accounts for variability across studies. The probability integration model identified more true discovered genes and fewer true omitted genes than combining expression measures, for our data sets.     

The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews

Background

Most meta-analyses include data from one or more small studies that, individually, do not have power to detect an intervention effect. The relative influence of adequately powered and underpowered studies in published meta-analyses has not previously been explored. We examine the distribution of power available in studies within meta-analyses published in Cochrane reviews, and investigate the impact of underpowered studies on meta-analysis results.

Methods and Findings

For 14,886 meta-analyses of binary outcomes from 1,991 Cochrane reviews, we calculated power per study within each meta-analysis. We defined adequate power as ≥50% power to detect a 30% relative risk reduction. In a subset of 1,107 meta-analyses including 5 or more studies with at least two adequately powered and at least one underpowered, results were compared with and without underpowered studies. In 10,492 (70%) of 14,886 meta-analyses, all included studies were underpowered; only 2,588 (17%) included at least two adequately powered studies. 34% of the meta-analyses themselves were adequately powered. The median of summary relative risks was 0.75 across all meta-analyses (inter-quartile range 0.55 to 0.89). In the subset examined, odds ratios in underpowered studies were 15% lower (95% CI 11% to 18%, P<0.0001) than in adequately powered studies, in meta-analyses of controlled pharmacological trials; and 12% lower (95% CI 7% to 17%, P<0.0001) in meta-analyses of controlled non-pharmacological trials. The standard error of the intervention effect increased by a median of 11% (inter-quartile range −1% to 35%) when underpowered studies were omitted; and between-study heterogeneity tended to decrease.

Conclusions

When at least two adequately powered studies are available in meta-analyses reported by Cochrane reviews, underpowered studies often contribute little information, and could be left out if a rapid review of the evidence is required. However, underpowered studies made up the entirety of the evidence in most Cochrane reviews.     

Accumulating Research: A Systematic Account of How Cumulative Meta-Analyses Would Have Provided Knowledge,Improved Health,Reduced Harm and Saved Resources

Background

“Cumulative meta-analysis” describes a statistical procedure to calculate, retrospectively, summary estimates from the results of similar trials every time the results of a further trial in the series had become available. In the early 1990s, comparisons of cumulative meta-analyses of treatments for myocardial infarction with advice promulgated through medical textbooks showed that research had continued long after robust estimates of treatment effects had accumulated, and that medical textbooks had overlooked strong, existing evidence from trials. Cumulative meta-analyses have subsequently been used to assess what could have been known had new studies been informed by systematic reviews of relevant existing evidence and how waste might have been reduced.

Methods and Findings

We used a systematic approach to identify and summarise the findings of cumulative meta-analyses of studies of the effects of clinical interventions, published from 1992 to 2012. Searches were done of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Methodology Register and Science Citation Index. A total of 50 eligible reports were identified, including more than 1,500 cumulative meta-analyses. A variety of themes are illustrated with specific examples. The studies showed that initially positive results became null or negative in meta-analyses as more trials were done; that early null or negative results were over-turned; that stable results (beneficial, harmful and neutral) would have been seen had a meta-analysis been done before the new trial; and that additional trials had been much too small to resolve the remaining uncertainties.

Conclusions

This large, unique collection of cumulative meta-analyses highlights how a review of the existing evidence might have helped researchers, practitioners, patients and funders make more informed decisions and choices about new trials over decades of research. This would have led to earlier uptake of effective interventions in practice, less exposure of trial participants to less effective treatments, and reduced waste resulting from unjustified research.     

Publication Bias in Recent Meta-Analyses

Introduction

Positive results have a greater chance of being published and outcomes that are statistically significant have a greater chance of being fully reported. One consequence of research underreporting is that it may influence the sample of studies that is available for a meta-analysis. Smaller studies are often characterized by larger effects in published meta-analyses, which can be possibly explained by publication bias. We investigated the association between the statistical significance of the results and the probability of being included in recent meta-analyses.

Methods

For meta-analyses of clinical trials, we defined the relative risk as the ratio of the probability of including statistically significant results favoring the treatment to the probability of including other results. For meta-analyses of other studies, we defined the relative risk as the ratio of the probability of including biologically plausible statistically significant results to the probability of including other results. We applied a Bayesian selection model for meta-analyses that included at least 30 studies and were published in four major general medical journals (BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and PLOS Medicine) between 2008 and 2012.

Results

We identified 49 meta-analyses. The estimate of the relative risk was greater than one in 42 meta-analyses, greater than two in 16 meta-analyses, greater than three in eight meta-analyses, and greater than five in four meta-analyses. In 10 out of 28 meta-analyses of clinical trials, there was strong evidence that statistically significant results favoring the treatment were more likely to be included. In 4 out of 19 meta-analyses of observational studies, there was strong evidence that plausible statistically significant outcomes had a higher probability of being included.

Conclusions

Publication bias was present in a substantial proportion of large meta-analyses that were recently published in four major medical journals.     

Addressing Dichotomous Data for Participants Excluded from Trial Analysis: A Guide for Systematic Reviewers

Introduction

Systematic reviewer authors intending to include all randomized participants in their meta-analyses need to make assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data.

Objective

The objective of this paper is to provide systematic reviewer authors with a relatively simple guidance for addressing dichotomous data for participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials.

Methods

This guide is based on a review of the Cochrane handbook and published methodological research. The guide deals with participants excluded from the analysis who were considered ‘non-adherent to the protocol’ but for whom data are available, and participants with missing data.

Results

Systematic reviewer authors should include data from ‘non-adherent’ participants excluded from the primary study authors'' analysis but for whom data are available. For missing, unavailable participant data, authors may conduct a complete case analysis (excluding those with missing data) as the primary analysis. Alternatively, they may conduct a primary analysis that makes plausible assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data. When the primary analysis suggests important benefit, sensitivity meta-analyses using relatively extreme assumptions that may vary in plausibility can inform the extent to which risk of bias impacts the confidence in the results of the primary analysis. The more plausible assumptions draw on the outcome event rates within the trial or in all trials included in the meta-analysis. The proposed guide does not take into account the uncertainty associated with assumed events.

Conclusions

This guide proposes methods for handling participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials. These methods can help in establishing the extent to which risk of bias impacts meta-analysis results.     

Preoperative muscle weakness as defined by handgrip strength and postoperative outcomes: a systematic review

Background

Reduced muscle strength- commonly characterized by decreased handgrip strength compared to population norms- is associated with numerous untoward outcomes. Preoperative handgrip strength is a potentially attractive real-time, non-invasive, cheap and easy-to-perform "bedside" assessment tool. Using systematic review procedure, we investigated whether preoperative handgrip strength was associated with postoperative outcomes in adults undergoing surgery.

Methods

PRISMA and MOOSE consensus guidelines for reporting systematic reviews were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (1980-2010) were systematically searched by two independent reviewers. The selection criteria were limited to include studies of preoperative handgrip strength in human adults undergoing non-emergency, cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. Study procedural quality was analysed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment score. The outcomes assessed were postoperative morbidity, mortality and hospital stay.

Results

Nineteen clinical studies (17 prospective; 4 in urgent surgery) comprising 2194 patients were identified between1980-2010. Impaired handgrip strength and postoperative morbidity were defined inconsistently between studies. Only 2 studies explicitly ensured investigators collecting postoperative outcomes data were blinded to preoperative handgrip strength test results. The heterogeneity of study design used and the diversity of surgical procedures precluded formal meta-analysis. Despite the moderate quality of these observational studies, lower handgrip strength was associated with increased morbidity (n = 10 studies), mortality (n = 2/5 studies) and length of hospital stay (n = 3/7 studies).

Conclusions

Impaired preoperative handgrip strength may be associated with poorer postoperative outcomes, but further work exploring its predictive power is warranted using prospectively acquired, objectively defined measures of postoperative morbidity.     

GWAPower: a statistical power calculation software for genome-wide association studies with quantitative traits

Background

In designing genome-wide association (GWA) studies it is important to calculate statistical power. General statistical power calculation procedures for quantitative measures often require information concerning summary statistics of distributions such as mean and variance. However, with genetic studies, the effect size of quantitative traits is traditionally expressed as heritability, a quantity defined as the amount of phenotypic variation in the population that can be ascribed to the genetic variants among individuals. Heritability is hard to transform into summary statistics. Therefore, general power calculation procedures cannot be used directly in GWA studies. The development of appropriate statistical methods and a user-friendly software package to address this problem would be welcomed.

Results

This paper presents GWAPower, a statistical software package of power calculation designed for GWA studies with quantitative traits, where genetic effect is defined as heritability. Based on several popular one-degree-of-freedom genetic models, this method avoids the need to specify the non-centrality parameter of the F-distribution under the alternative hypothesis. Therefore, it can use heritability information directly without approximation. In GWAPower, the power calculation can be easily adjusted for adding covariates and linkage disequilibrium information. An example is provided to illustrate GWAPower, followed by discussions.

Conclusions

GWAPower is a user-friendly free software package for calculating statistical power based on heritability in GWA studies with quantitative traits. The software is freely available at: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10502931/GWAPower.zip     

Osteopathic manipulative treatment and its relationship to autonomic nervous system activity as demonstrated by heart rate variability: a repeated measures study

Background

Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and ultrasound physical therapy (UPT) are commonly used for chronic low back pain. Although there is evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis that OMT generally reduces low back pain, there are no large clinical trials that specifically assess OMT efficacy in chronic low back pain. Similarly, there is a lack of evidence involving UPT for chronic low back pain.

Methods

The OSTEOPAThic Health outcomes In Chronic low back pain (OSTEOPATHIC) Trial is a Phase III randomized controlled trial that seeks to study 488 subjects between August 2006 and June 2010. It uses a 2 × 2 factorial design to independently assess the efficacy of OMT and UPT for chronic low back pain. The primary outcome is a visual analogue scale score for pain. Secondary outcomes include back-specific functioning, generic health, work disability, and satisfaction with back care.

Conclusion

This randomized controlled trial will potentially be the largest involving OMT. It will provide long awaited data on the efficacy of OMT and UPT for chronic low back pain.

Trial registration

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00315120     

The efficacy of computer reminders on external quality assessment for point-of-care testing in Danish general practice: rationale and methodology for two randomized trials

Background

Effective provider-parent communication can improve childhood vaccination uptake and strengthen immunisation services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Building capacity to improve communication strategies has been neglected. Rigorous research exists but is not readily found or applicable to LMICs, making it difficult for policy makers to use it to inform vaccination policies and practice. The aim of this project is to build research knowledge and capacity to use evidence-based strategies for improving communication about childhood vaccinations with parents and communities in LMICs.

Methods and design

This project is a mixed methods study with six sub-studies. In sub-study one, we will develop a systematic map of provider-parent communication interventions for childhood vaccinations by screening and extracting data from relevant literature. This map will inform sub-study two, in which we will develop a taxonomy of interventions to improve provider-parent communication around childhood vaccination. In sub-study three, the taxonomy will be populated with trial citations to create an evidence map, which will also identify how evidence is linked to communication barriers regarding vaccination. In the project's fourth sub-study, we will present the interventions map, taxonomy, and evidence map to international stakeholders to identify high-priority topics for systematic reviews of interventions to improve parent-provider communication for childhood vaccination. We will produce systematic reviews of the effects of high-priority interventions in the fifth sub-study. In the sixth and final sub-study of the project, evidence from the systematic reviews will be translated into accessible formats and messages for dissemination to LMICs.

Discussion

This project combines evidence mapping, conceptual and taxonomy development, priority setting, systematic reviews, and knowledge transfer. It will build and share concepts, terms, evidence, and resources to aid the development of communication strategies for effective vaccination programmes in LMICs.     

Testosterone,Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin and the Metabolic Syndrome in Men: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Background

Low total testosterone (TT) and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) concentrations have been associated with the metabolic syndrome (MetS) in men, but the reported strength of association varies considerably.

Objectives

We aimed to investigate whether associations differ across specific subgroups (according to age and body mass index (BMI)) and individual MetS components.

Data sources

Two previously published meta-analyses including an updated systematic search in PubMed and EMBASE.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Cross-sectional or prospective observational studies with data on TT and/or SHBG concentrations in combination with MetS in men.

Methods

We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis of 20 observational studies. Mixed effects models were used to assess cross-sectional and prospective associations of TT, SHBG and free testosterone (FT) with MetS and its individual components. Multivariable adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated and effect modification by age and BMI was studied.

Results

Men with low concentrations of TT, SHBG or FT were more likely to have prevalent MetS (ORs per quartile decrease were 1.69 (95% CI 1.60-1.77), 1.73 (95% CI 1.62-1.85) and 1.46 (95% CI 1.36-1.57) for TT, SHBG and FT, respectively) and incident MetS (HRs per quartile decrease were 1.25 (95% CI 1.16-1.36), 1.44 (95% 1.30-1.60) and 1.14 (95% 1.01-1.28) for TT, SHBG and FT, respectively). Overall, the magnitude of associations was largest in non-overweight men and varied across individual components: stronger associations were observed with hypertriglyceridemia, abdominal obesity and hyperglycaemia and associations were weakest for hypertension.

Conclusions

Associations of testosterone and SHBG with MetS vary according to BMI and individual MetS components. These findings provide further insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms linking low testosterone and SHBG concentrations to cardiometabolic risk.     

Prognostic Role of Survivin in Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

The objective of the present study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature investigating the survivin expression and its effects on bladder cancer prognosis.

Materials and Methods

We carefully searched online Pubmed, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS database from August 1997 to May 2013.

Results

A total of 14 articles met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. The eligible studies included a total of 2,165 patients with a median number of 155 patients per study (range: 17–726). Of the 14 studies, nine evaluated immunohistochemistry in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks. In non-muscle invasive bladder tumor, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) was statistically significant for recurrence-free survival (pooled HR, 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30–2.52), progression-free survival (pooled HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.60–2.82), cancer-specific survival (pooled HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.32–3.06), and overall survival (pooled HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.02–2.29). The overall HRs by survivin status were robust across advanced stages. When only adjusted survival data were included, statistically significant differences were identified for all survival subgroup analyses. There was no between-study heterogeneity in the effect of survivin status on the majority of meta-analyses. There was no clear evidence of publication bias in this meta-analysis.

Conclusions

Survivin expression indicates worse prognosis in patients with bladder cancer but the results should be interpreted with caution. It is necessary that better-designed studies with standardized assays need to provide a better conclusion about the relationship between survivin expression and the outcome of patients with bladder cancer.     

Expert opinion on laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer parallels evidence from a cumulative meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

This study sought to synthesize survival outcomes from trials of laparoscopic and open colorectal cancer surgery, and to determine whether expert acceptance of this technology in the literature has parallel cumulative survival evidence.

Study Design

A systematic review of randomized trials was conducted. The primary outcome was survival, and meta-analysis of time-to-event data was conducted. Expert opinion in the literature (published reviews, guidelines, and textbook chapters) on the acceptability of laparoscopic colorectal cancer was graded using a 7-point scale. Pooled survival data were correlated in time with accumulating expert opinion scores.

Results

A total of 5,800 citations were screened. Of these, 39 publications pertaining to 23 individual trials were retained. As well, 414 reviews were included (28 guidelines, 30 textbook chapters, 20 systematic reviews, 336 narrative reviews). In total, 5,782 patients were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 3,031) and open (n = 2,751) colorectal surgery. Survival data were presented in 16 publications. Laparoscopic surgery was not inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.80, 1.09). Expert opinion in the literature pertaining to the oncologic acceptability of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer correlated most closely with the publication of large RCTs in 2002–2004. Although increasingly accepted since 2006, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remained controversial.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is non-inferior to open surgery in terms of overall survival, and has been so since 2004. The majority expert opinion in the literature has considered these two techniques to be equivalent since 2002–2004. Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been increasingly accepted since 2006, but remains controversial. Knowledge translation efforts in this field appear to have paralleled the accumulation of clinical trial evidence.