Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis (Protocol)

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To systematically review the available evidence on the effects (benefits and harms) of DPP‐4 inhibitors, GLP‐1 receptor agonists, and SGLT‐2 inhibitors in people with established CVD, using network meta‐analysis

Impact of missing participant data for dichotomous outcomes on pooled effect estimates in systematic reviews : a protocol for a methodological study

Abstract Background There is no consensus on how authors conducting meta-analysis should deal with trial participants with missing outcome data. The objectives of this study are to assess in Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews: (1) which categories of trial participants the systematic review authors consider as having missing participant data (MPD), (2) how trialists reported on participants with missing outcome data in trials, (3) whether systematic reviewer authors actually dealt with MPD in their meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes consistently with their reported methods, and (4) the impact of different methods of dealing with MPD on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes. Methods/Design We will conduct a methodological study of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Eligible systematic reviews will include a group-level meta-analysis of a patient-important dichotomous efficacy outcome, with a statistically significant effect estimate. Teams of two reviewers will determine eligibility and subsequently extract information from each eligible systematic review in duplicate and independently, using standardized, pre-piloted forms. The teams will then use a similar process to extract information from the trials included in the meta-analyses of interest. We will assess first which categories of trial participants the systematic reviewers consider as having MPD. Second, we will assess how trialists reported on participants with missing outcome data in trials. Third, we will compare what systematic reviewers report having done, and what they actually did, in dealing with MPD in their meta-analysis. Fourth, we will conduct imputation studies to assess the effects of different methods of dealing with MPD on the pooled effect estimates of meta-analyses. We will specifically calculate for each method (1) the percentage of systematic reviews that lose statistical significance and (2) the mean change of effect estimates across systematic reviews. Discussion The impact of different methods of dealing with MPD on pooled effect estimates will help judge the associated risk of bias in systematic reviews. Our findings will inform recommendations regarding what assumptions for MPD should be used to test the robustness of meta-analytical results

Many meta-analyses of rare events in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were underpowered

Background and ObjectiveMeta-analysis is a statistical method with the ability to increase the power for statistical inference, while it may still face the problem of being underpowered. In this study, we investigated the power to detect certain true effects for published meta-analyses of rare events. MethodsWe extracted data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analyses of rare events from January 2003 to May 2018. We retrospectively estimated the power to detect a 10–50% relative risk reduction (RRR) of eligible meta-analyses. The proportion of meta-analyses achieved a sufficient power (≥0.8) were estimated. ResultsWe identified 4,177 meta-analyses. The median power to detect 10%, 30%, and 50% RRR were 0.06 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.05 to 0.06), 0.08 (IQR: 0.06 to 0.15), and 0.17 (IQR: 0.10 to 0.42), respectively); the corresponding proportion of meta-analyses that reached sufficient power were 0.32%, 3.68%, and 11.81%. Meta-analyses incorporating data from more studies had higher probability to achieve a sufficient power (rate ratio = 2.49, 95% CI: 1.76, 3.52, P < 0.001). ConclusionMost of the meta-analyses of rare events in Cochrane systematic reviews were underpowered. Future meta-analysis of rare events should report the power of the results to support informative conclusions.We would like to thank Qatar National Library for funding the Open Access payment