Label-invariant models for the analysis of meta-epidemiological data.

Rich meta-epidemiological data sets have been collected to explore associations between intervention effect estimates and study-level characteristics. Welton et al proposed models for the analysis of meta-epidemiological data, but these models are restrictive because they force heterogeneity among studies with a particular characteristic to be at least as large as that among studies without the characteristic. In this paper we present alternative models that are invariant to the labels defining the 2 categories of studies. To exemplify the methods, we use a collection of meta-analyses in which the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool has been implemented. We first investigate the influence of small trial sample sizes (less than 100 participants), before investigating the influence of multiple methodological flaws (inadequate or unclear sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding). We fit both the Welton et al model and our proposed label-invariant model and compare the results. Estimates of mean bias associated with the trial characteristics and of between-trial variances are not very sensitive to the choice of model. Results from fitting a univariable model show that heterogeneity variance is, on average, 88% greater among trials with less than 100 participants. On the basis of a multivariable model, heterogeneity variance is, on average, 25% greater among trials with inadequate/unclear sequence generation, 51% greater among trials with inadequate/unclear blinding, and 23% lower among trials with inadequate/unclear allocation concealment, although the 95% intervals for these ratios are very wide. Our proposed label-invariant models for meta-epidemiological data analysis facilitate investigations of between-study heterogeneity attributable to certain study characteristics

Desorption of metals from Cetraria islandica (L.) Ach. Lichen using solutions simulating acid rain

Desorption of metals K, Al, Ca, Mg, Fe, Ba, Zn, Mn, Cu and Sr from Cetraria islandica (L.) with solutions whose composition was similar to that of acid rain, was investigated. Desorption of metals from the lichen was performed by five successive desorption processes. Solution mixtures containing H2SO4, HNO3 and H2SO4-HNO3 were used for desorption. Each solution had three different pH values: 4.61, 5.15 and 5.75, so that the desorptions were performed with nine different solutions successively five times, always using the same solution volume. The investigated metals can be divided into two groups. One group was comprised of K, Ca and Mg, which were desorbed in each of the five desorption processes at all pH values used. The second group included Al, Fe, Zn, Ba, Mn and Sr; these were not desorbed in each individual desorption and not at all pH values, whereas Cu was not desorbed at all under any circumstances. Using the logarithmic dependence of the metal content as a function of the desorption number, it was found that potassium builds two types of links and is connected with weaker links in lichen. Potassium is completely desorbed, 80% in the first desorption, and then gradually in the following desorptions. Other metals are linked with one weaker link (desorption 1-38%) and with one very strong link (desorption below the metal detection limit). [Projekat Ministarstva nauke Republike Srbije, br. III43009 i br. ON 172019

Adjusting trial results for biases in meta-analysis: combining data-based evidence on bias with detailed trial assessment.

Flaws in the conduct of randomized trials can lead to biased estimation of the intervention effect. Methods for adjustment of within-trial biases in meta-analysis include the use of empirical evidence from an external collection of meta-analyses, and the use of expert opinion informed by the assessment of detailed trial information. Our aim is to present methods to combine these two approaches to gain the advantages of both. We make use of the risk of bias information that is routinely available in Cochrane reviews, by obtaining empirical distributions for the bias associated with particular bias profiles (combinations of risk of bias judgements). We propose three methods: a formal combination of empirical evidence and opinion in a Bayesian analysis; asking experts to give an opinion on bias informed by both summary trial information and a bias distribution from the empirical evidence, either numerically or by selecting areas of the empirical distribution. The methods are demonstrated through application to two example binary outcome meta-analyses. Bias distributions based on opinion informed by trial information alone were most dispersed on average, and those based on opinions obtained by selecting areas of the empirical distribution were narrowest. Although the three methods for combining empirical evidence with opinion vary in ease and speed of implementation, they yielded similar results in the two examples

Empirical evidence of study design biases in randomized trials:Systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies

To synthesise evidence on the average bias and heterogeneity associated with reported methodological features of randomized trials.Systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies.We retrieved eligible studies included in a recent AHRQ-EPC review on this topic (latest search September 2012), and searched Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE for studies indexed from Jan 2012-May 2015. Data were extracted by one author and verified by another. We combined estimates of average bias (e.g. ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or difference in standardised mean differences (dSMD)) in meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Analyses were stratified by type of outcome ("mortality" versus "other objective" versus "subjective"). Direction of effect was standardised so that ROR < 1 and dSMD < 0 denotes a larger intervention effect estimate in trials with an inadequate or unclear (versus adequate) characteristic.We included 24 studies. The available evidence suggests that intervention effect estimates may be exaggerated in trials with inadequate/unclear (versus adequate) sequence generation (ROR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 7 studies) and allocation concealment (ROR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97; 7 studies). For these characteristics, the average bias appeared to be larger in trials of subjective outcomes compared with other objective outcomes. Also, intervention effects for subjective outcomes appear to be exaggerated in trials with lack of/unclear blinding of participants (versus blinding) (dSMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.77 to 0.04; 2 studies), lack of/unclear blinding of outcome assessors (ROR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 1 study) and lack of/unclear double blinding (ROR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; 1 study). The influence of other characteristics (e.g. unblinded trial personnel, attrition) is unclear.Certain characteristics of randomized trials may exaggerate intervention effect estimates. The average bias appears to be greatest in trials of subjective outcomes. More research on several characteristics, particularly attrition and selective reporting, is needed

The effects of changes to the built environment on the mental health and well-being of adults: Systematic review

© 2018 The Authors There is increasing interest in the influence of place on health, and the need to distinguish between environmental and individual level factors. For environmental-level factors, current evidence tends to show associations through cross-sectional and uncontrolled longitudinal analyses rather than through more robust study designs that can provide stronger causal evidence. We restricted this systematic review to randomised (or cluster) randomised controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies of changes to the built environment. Date of search was December 2016. We identified 14 studies. No evidence was found of an effect on mental health from ‘urban regeneration’ and ‘improving green infrastructure’ studies. Beneficial effects on quality-of-life outcomes from ‘improving green infrastructure’ were found in two studies. One ‘improving green infrastructure’ study reported an improvement in social isolation. Risk-of-bias assessment indicated robust data from only four studies. Overall, evidence for the impact of built environment interventions on mental health and quality-of-life is weak. Future research requires more robust study designs and interdisciplinary research involving public health, planning and urban design experts

Agreement was moderate between data-based and opinion-based assessments of biases affecting randomised trials within meta-analyses

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials included in meta-analyses are often affected by bias caused by methodological flaws or limitations, but the degree of bias is unknown. Two proposed methods adjust trial results for bias using: (1) empirical evidence from published meta-epidemiological studies; or (2) expert opinion. METHODS: We investigated agreement between data-based and opinion-based approaches to assessing bias in each of four domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and incomplete outcome data. From each sampled meta-analysis, a pair of trials with the highest and lowest empirical model-based bias estimates was selected. Independent assessors were asked which trial within each pair was judged more biased on the basis of detailed trial design summaries. RESULTS: Assessors judged trials to be equally biased in 68% of pairs evaluated. When assessors judged one trial as more biased, the proportion of judgements agreeing with the model-based ranking was highest for allocation concealment (79%) and blinding (79%) and lower for sequence generation (59%) and incomplete outcome data (56%). CONCLUSIONS: Most trial pairs found to be discrepant empirically were judged to be equally biased by assessors. We found moderate agreement between opinion and data-based evidence in pairs where assessors ranked one trial as more biased

Methodological overview of systematic reviews to establish the evidence base for emergency general surgery

BACKGROUND: The evidence for treatment decision‐making in emergency general surgery has not been summarized previously. The aim of this overview was to review the quantity and quality of systematic review evidence for the most common emergency surgical conditions. METHODS: Systematic reviews of the most common conditions requiring unplanned admission and treatment managed by general surgeons were eligible for inclusion. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases were searched to April 2014. The number and type (randomized or non‐randomized) of included studies and patients were extracted and summarized. The total number of unique studies was recorded for each condition. The nature of the interventions (surgical, non‐surgical invasive or non‐invasive) was documented. The quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist. RESULTS: The 106 included reviews focused mainly on bowel conditions (42), appendicitis (40) and gallstone disease (17). Fifty‐one (48·1 per cent) included RCTs alone, 79 (74·5 per cent) included at least one RCT and 25 (23·6 per cent) summarized non‐randomized evidence alone. Reviews included 727 unique studies, of which 30·3 per cent were RCTs. Sixty‐five reviews compared different types of surgical intervention and 27 summarized trials of surgical versus non‐surgical interventions. Fifty‐seven reviews (53·8 per cent) were rated as low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This overview of reviews highlights the need for more and better research in this field

Oral anticoagulants for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease, and for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation:systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but anticoagulation is underused in clinical care. The risk of venous thromboembolic disease during hospitalisation can be reduced by low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH): warfarin is the most frequently prescribed anticoagulant for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Warfarin-related bleeding is a major reason for hospitalisation for adverse drug effects. Warfarin is cheap but therapeutic monitoring increases treatment costs. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have more rapid onset and offset of action than warfarin, and more predictable dosing requirements.OBJECTIVE: To determine the best oral anticoagulant/s for prevention of stroke in AF and for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of VTE.DESIGN: Four systematic reviews, network meta-analyses (NMAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of randomised controlled trials.SETTING: Hospital (VTE primary prevention and acute treatment) and primary care/anticoagulation clinics (AF and VTE secondary prevention).PARTICIPANTS: Patients eligible for anticoagulation with warfarin (stroke prevention in AF, acute treatment or secondary prevention of VTE) or LMWH (primary prevention of VTE).INTERVENTIONS: NOACs, warfarin and LMWH, together with other interventions (antiplatelet therapy, placebo) evaluated in the evidence network.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy Stroke, symptomatic VTE, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis and symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Safety Major bleeding, clinically relevant bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage. We also considered myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality and evaluated cost-effectiveness.DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, reference lists of published NMAs and trial registries. We searched MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. The stroke prevention in AF review search was run on the 12 March 2014 and updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2010 to September 2014. The search for the three reviews in VTE was run on the 19 March 2014, updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2008 to September 2014.REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened search results, extracted and checked data, and assessed risk of bias. For each outcome we conducted standard meta-analysis and NMA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using discrete-time Markov models.RESULTS: Apixaban (Eliquis(rcledR), Bristol-Myers Squibb, USA; Pfizer, USA) [5 mg bd (twice daily)] was ranked as among the best interventions for stroke prevention in AF, and had the highest expected net benefit. Edoxaban (Lixiana(rcledR), Daiichi Sankyo, Japan) [60 mg od (once daily)] was ranked second for major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Neither the clinical effectiveness analysis nor the CEA provided strong evidence that NOACs should replace postoperative LMWH in primary prevention of VTE. For acute treatment and secondary prevention of VTE, we found little evidence that NOACs offer an efficacy advantage over warfarin, but the risk of bleeding complications was lower for some NOACs than for warfarin. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of > £5000, apixaban (5 mg bd) had the highest expected net benefit for acute treatment of VTE. Aspirin or no pharmacotherapy were likely to be the most cost-effective interventions for secondary prevention of VTE: our results suggest that it is not cost-effective to prescribe NOACs or warfarin for this indication.CONCLUSIONS: NOACs have advantages over warfarin in patients with AF, but we found no strong evidence that they should replace warfarin or LMWH in primary prevention, treatment or secondary prevention of VTE.LIMITATIONS: These relate mainly to shortfalls in the primary data: in particular, there were no head-to-head comparisons between different NOAC drugs.FUTURE WORK: Calculating the expected value of sample information to clarify whether or not it would be justifiable to fund one or more head-to-head trials.STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005324, CRD42013005331 and CRD42013005330.FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme