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.

Combining follow-up and change data is valid in meta-analyses of continuous outcomes: a meta-epidemiological study / da Costa, Br; Nüesch, E; Rutjes, A; Johnston, Bc; Reichenbach, S; Trelle, S; Guyatt, Gh; Jüni, P. - In: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY. - ISSN 0895-4356. - 66:8(2013), pp. 847-855. [10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.009]

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

Rutjes A;
2013-01-01

Abstract

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.
66
8
847
855
Combining follow-up and change data is valid in meta-analyses of continuous outcomes: a meta-epidemiological study / da Costa, Br; Nüesch, E; Rutjes, A; Johnston, Bc; Reichenbach, S; Trelle, S; Guyatt, Gh; Jüni, P. - In: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY. - ISSN 0895-4356. - 66:8(2013), pp. 847-855. [10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.009]
da Costa, Br; Nüesch, E; Rutjes, A; Johnston, Bc; Reichenbach, S; Trelle, S; Guyatt, Gh; Jüni, P
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2013_DaCosta_change_fup.pdf

Riservato

Dimensione 315.63 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
315.63 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1286699
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 71
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 61
social impact