The median and the mode as robust meta-analysis estimators in the presence of small-study effects and outliers

Meta-analyses based on systematic literature reviews are commonly used to obtain a quantitative summary of the available evidence on a given topic. However, the reliability of any meta-analysis is constrained by that of its constituent studies. One major limitation is the possibility of small-study effects, when estimates from smaller and larger studies differ systematically. Small-study effects may result from reporting biases (ie, publication bias), from inadequacies of the included studies that are related to study size, or from reasons unrelated to bias. We propose two estimators based on the median and mode to increase the reliability of findings in a meta-analysis by mitigating the influence of small-study effects. By re-examining data from published meta-analyses and by conducting a simulation study, we show that these estimators offer robustness to a range of plausible bias mechanisms, without making explicit modelling assumptions. They are also robust to outlying studies without explicitly removing such studies from the analysis. When meta-analyses are suspected to be at risk of bias because of small-study effects, we recommend reporting the mean, median and modal pooled estimates.</p

Influence of childhood growth on asthma and lung function in adolescence

Background Low birth weight and rapid infant growth in early infancy are associated with increased risk of childhood asthma, but little is known about the role of postinfancy growth in asthmatic children. Objectives We sought to examine the associations of children's growth patterns with asthma, bronchial responsiveness, and lung function until adolescence. Methods Individual growth trajectories from birth until 10 years of age were estimated by using linear spline multilevel models for 9723 children participating in a population-based prospective cohort study. Current asthma at 8, 14, and 17 years of age was based on questionnaires. Lung function and bronchial responsiveness or reversibility were measured during clinic visits at 8 and 15 years of age. Results Rapid weight growth between 0 and 3 months of age was most consistently associated with increased risks of current asthma at the ages of 8 and 17 years, bronchial responsiveness at age 8 years, and bronchial reversibility at age 15 years. Rapid weight growth was associated with lung function values, with the strongest associations for weight gain between 3 and 7 years of age and higher forced vital capacity (FVC) and FEV1 values at age 15 years (0.12 [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.17] and 0.11 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.15], z score per SD, respectively) and weight growth between 0 and 3 months of age and lower FEV1/FVC ratios at age 8 and 15 years (-0.13 [95% CI, -0.16 to -0.10] and -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01], z score per SD, respectively). Rapid length growth was associated with lower FVC and FVC1 values at age 15 years. Conclusion Faster weight growth in early childhood is associated with asthma and bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and faster weight growth across childhood is associated with higher FVC and FEV1 values

Comprehensive ascertainment of bleeding in patients prescribed different combinations of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and triple therapy (TT) in the UK:Study protocol for three population-based cohort studies emulating a € target trials' (the ADAPTT Study)

Introduction a € Real world' bleeding in patients exposed to different regimens of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and triple therapy (TT, DAPT plus an anticoagulant) have a clinical and economic impact but have not been previously quantified. Methods and analysis We will use linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data to assemble populations eligible for three a € target trials' in patient groups: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG); conservatively managed (medication only) acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Patients ≥18 years old will be eligible if, in CPRD records, they have: ≥1 year of data before the index event; no prescription for DAPT or anticoagulants in the preceding 3 months; a prescription for aspirin or DAPT within 2 months after discharge from the index event. The primary outcome will be any bleeding event (CPRD or HES) up to 12 months after the index event. We will estimate adjusted HR for time to first bleeding event comparing: aspirin and clopidogrel (reference) versus aspirin and prasugrel or aspirin and ticagrelor after PCI; and aspirin (reference) versus aspirin and clopidogrel after CABG and ACS. We will describe rates of bleeding in patients prescribed TT (DAPT plus an anticoagulant). Potential confounders will be identified systematically using literature review, semistructured interviews with clinicians and a short survey of clinicians. We will conduct sensitivity analyses addressing the robustness of results to the study's main limitation - that we will not be able to identify the intervention group for patients whose bleeding event occurs before a DAPT prescription in CPRD. Ethics and dissemination This protocol was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee for the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Database Research (protocol 16-126R) and the South West Cornwall and Plymouth Research Ethics Committee (17/SW/0092). The findings will be presented in peer-reviewed journals, lay summaries and briefing papers to commissioners/other stakeholders. Trial registration number 76607611; Pre-results

Screening strategies for atrial fibrillation:A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that increases the risk of thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation therapy to prevent AF-related stroke has been shown to be cost-effective. A national screening programme for AF may prevent AF-related events, but would involve a substantial investment of NHS resources. Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of screening tests for AF, update a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating screening strategies for AF, develop an economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies and review observational studies of AF screening to provide inputs to the model. Design: Systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting: Primary care. Participants: Adults. Intervention: Screening strategies, defined by screening test, age at initial and final screens, screening interval and format of screening {systematic opportunistic screening [individuals offered screening if they consult with their general practitioner (GP)] or systematic population screening (when all eligible individuals are invited to screening)}. Main outcome measures: Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios; the odds ratio of detecting new AF cases compared with no screening; and the mean incremental net benefit compared with no screening. Review methods: Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A DTA meta-analysis was perfomed, and a decision tree and Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the screening strategies. Results: Diagnostic test accuracy depended on the screening test and how it was interpreted. In general, the screening tests identified in our review had high sensitivity (> 0.9). Systematic population and systematic opportunistic screening strategies were found to be similarly effective, with an estimated 170 individuals needed to be screened to detect one additional AF case compared with no screening. Systematic opportunistic screening was more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening, as long as the uptake of opportunistic screening observed in randomised controlled trials translates to practice. Modified blood pressure monitors, photoplethysmography or nurse pulse palpation were more likely to be cost-effective than other screening tests. A screening strategy with an initial screening age of 65 years and repeated screens every 5 years until age 80 years was likely to be cost-effective, provided that compliance with treatment does not decline with increasing age. Conclusions: A national screening programme for AF is likely to represent a cost-effective use of resources. Systematic opportunistic screening is more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening. Nurse pulse palpation or modified blood pressure monitors would be appropriate screening tests, with confirmation by diagnostic 12-lead electrocardiography interpreted by a trained GP, with referral to a specialist in the case of an unclear diagnosis. Implementation strategies to operationalise uptake of systematic opportunistic screening in primary care should accompany any screening recommendations. Limitations: Many inputs for the economic model relied on a single trial [the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly (SAFE) study] and DTA results were based on a few studies at high risk of bias/of low applicability. Future work: Comparative studies measuring long-term outcomes of screening strategies and DTA studies for new, emerging technologies and to replicate the results for photoplethysmography and GP interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiography in a screening population. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013739. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Screening strategies for atrial fibrillation:A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that increases the risk of thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation therapy to prevent AF-related stroke has been shown to be cost-effective. A national screening programme for AF may prevent AF-related events, but would involve a substantial investment of NHS resources. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of screening tests for AF, update a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating screening strategies for AF, develop an economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies and review observational studies of AF screening to provide inputs to the model. DESIGN: Systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Adults. INTERVENTION: Screening strategies, defined by screening test, age at initial and final screens, screening interval and format of screening {systematic opportunistic screening [individuals offered screening if they consult with their general practitioner (GP)] or systematic population screening (when all eligible individuals are invited to screening)}. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios; the odds ratio of detecting new AF cases compared with no screening; and the mean incremental net benefit compared with no screening. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A DTA meta-analysis was perfomed, and a decision tree and Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the screening strategies. RESULTS: Diagnostic test accuracy depended on the screening test and how it was interpreted. In general, the screening tests identified in our review had high sensitivity (> 0.9). Systematic population and systematic opportunistic screening strategies were found to be similarly effective, with an estimated 170 individuals needed to be screened to detect one additional AF case compared with no screening. Systematic opportunistic screening was more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening, as long as the uptake of opportunistic screening observed in randomised controlled trials translates to practice. Modified blood pressure monitors, photoplethysmography or nurse pulse palpation were more likely to be cost-effective than other screening tests. A screening strategy with an initial screening age of 65 years and repeated screens every 5 years until age 80 years was likely to be cost-effective, provided that compliance with treatment does not decline with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: A national screening programme for AF is likely to represent a cost-effective use of resources. Systematic opportunistic screening is more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening. Nurse pulse palpation or modified blood pressure monitors would be appropriate screening tests, with confirmation by diagnostic 12-lead electrocardiography interpreted by a trained GP, with referral to a specialist in the case of an unclear diagnosis. Implementation strategies to operationalise uptake of systematic opportunistic screening in primary care should accompany any screening recommendations. LIMITATIONS: Many inputs for the economic model relied on a single trial [the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly (SAFE) study] and DTA results were based on a few studies at high risk of bias/of low applicability. FUTURE WORK: Comparative studies measuring long-term outcomes of screening strategies and DTA studies for new, emerging technologies and to replicate the results for photoplethysmography and GP interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiography in a screening population. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013739. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Temporal stability of multitrigger and episodic viral wheeze in early childhood

The distinction between episodic viral wheeze (EVW) and multitrigger wheeze (MTW) is used to guide management of preschool wheeze. It has been questioned whether these phenotypes are stable over time. We examined the temporal stability of MTW and EVW in two large population-based cohorts.We classified children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (n=10 970) and the Leicester Respiratory Cohorts ((LRCs), n=3263) into EVW, MTW and no wheeze at ages 2, 4 and 6 years based on parent-reported symptoms. Using multinomial regression, we estimated relative risk ratios for EVW and MTW at follow-up (no wheeze as reference category) with and without adjusting for wheeze severity.Although large proportions of children with EVW and MTW became asymptomatic, those that continued to wheeze showed a tendency to remain in the same phenotype: among children with MTW at 4 years in the LRCs, the adjusted relative risk ratio was 15.6 (95% CI 8.3-29.2) for MTW (stable phenotype) compared to 7.0 (95% CI 2.6-18.9) for EVW (phenotype switching) at 6 years. The tendency to persist was weaker for EVW and from 2-4 years. Results were similar across cohorts.This suggests that MTW, and to a lesser extent EVW, tend to persist regardless of wheeze severity

Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

Objective: To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome. Design: Combined analysis of data from three metaepidemiological studies based on collections of metaanalyses. Data sources 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes. Main outcome measures Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or nonblinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates. Results: In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and nondrug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses. Conclusions: The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses

Cohort profile:Collaboration of Observational HIV Epidemiological Research Europe (COHERE) in EuroCoord

Many questions about the long-term effects of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) on clinical 3 outcomes in people living with HIV (PLWH) and their impact on health systems remain unanswered. The 4 Collaboration of Observational HIV Epidemiological Research Europe (COHERE) was formed in 2005 to 5 pool and harmonize existing longitudinal data on people living with HIV in Europe, to answer key 6 research questions that could not be addressed adequately by individual cohorts. Key research 7 questions include long-term prognosis, rare outcomes, and variations across patient groups, settings 8 and health systems. COHERE uses the HIV Cohorts Data Exchange Protocol, a standardized and validated 9 method of data structure and transfer, to compile data from over 40 cohorts of PLWH residing in 10 Europe, representing 331 481 individuals, including 2808 children (<13), representing 2 135 896 person- 11 years of follow-up. COHERE compiles data on clinical characteristics, antiretroviral therapy and other 12 medications, HIV seroconversion, opportunistic infections, laboratory results and socio demographic 13 data. External collaborators interested in conducting a project in COHERE should submit a project 14 proposal to the Regional Coordinating Centres in Bordeaux and Copenhagen for review by COHERE’s 15 governing bodies (see www.cohere.org for further information)