Application of credibility ceilings probes the robustness of meta-analyses of biomarkers and cancer risk
Application of credibility ceilings probes the robustness of meta-analyses of biomarkers and cancer risk
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.004
复制
发表时间：
2015-02-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Ioannidis, John P. A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Papatheodorou, Stefania I.;Tsilidis, Konstantinos K.;Ioannidis, John P. A.
目的：生物标记物的荟萃分析往往呈现假的、显著的结果和大的影响。我们使用可信度上限进行敏感性分析，以评估生物标记物和癌症风险的荟萃分析结果是否以及如何发生变化。研究设计和环境：我们评估了98项荟萃分析，其中43项(44%)具有名义上的统计学意义。我们假设任何一项研究都不能给出超过100-c%(c，可信度上限)的最大可信度，即效应估计[优势比(OR)]超过1(空)或1.2。结果：在21项(21%)Meta分析中，对于c=10%和OR>；1，这些比例分别变为7%、3%和6%，上限分别为20%、30%和40%。对于OR>；1.2的上限，比例分别为37%、21%、7%和3%。7个感染性因素的荟萃分析仍然具有统计学意义，即使OR>；1.00的上限为c=20%。没有其他偏倚暗示的Meta分析(研究间异质性大、小研究效应、过度显着性)比那些有偏倚暗示的Meta分析更有可能保留统计学意义。结论：可信度上限可能有助于在生物标记物的Meta分析中了解结果对不同不确定性水平的稳健性。(C)2015 Elsevier Inc.保留所有权利。
Objectives: Meta-analyses of biomarkers often present spurious significant results and large effects. We applied sensitivity analyses with the use of credibility ceilings to assess whether and how the results of meta-analyses of biomarkers and cancer risk would change.Study Design and Setting: We evaluated 98 meta-analyses, 43 (44%) of which had nominally statistically significant results. We assumed that any single study cannot give more than a maximum certainty 100 - c% (c, credibility ceiling) that the effect estimate [odds ratio (OR)] exceeds 1 (null) or 1.2.Results: Nominal statistical significance was maintained for 21(21%) meta-analyses, for c = 10% and OR > 1, and these proportions changed to 7%, 3%, and 6% with ceilings of 20%, 30%, and 40%, respectively. For ceilings for OR > 1.2, the respective proportions were 37%, 21%, 7%, and 3%. Seven meta-analyses on infectious agents retained statistical significance even with a high ceiling of c = 20% for OR > 1.00. Meta-analyses without other hints of bias (large between-study heterogeneity, small-study effects, excess significance) were more likely to retain statistical significance than those that had such hints of bias.Conclusion: Credibility ceilings may be helpful in meta-analyses of biomarkers to understand the robustness of the results to different levels of uncertainty. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.