Assessment of publication bias, selection bias, and unavailable data in meta-analyses using individual participant data: a database survey
Assessment of publication bias, selection bias, and unavailable data in meta-analyses using individual participant data: a database survey
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.d7762
复制
发表时间：
2012-01-03
影响因子：
105.7
通讯作者：
Riley, Richard D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ahmed, Ikhlaaq;Sutton, Alexander J.;Riley, Richard D.
目的探讨最近发表的使用个体参与者数据的荟萃分析中可能存在的发表偏倚、数据可用性偏倚和审稿人选择偏倚，并调查此类荟萃分析的作者是否意识到这些问题。我们调查了31项最近的随机试验荟萃分析，这些试验检查了干预措施是否有效。识别相关的文章和数据提取进行了一个作者和检查由another.Results只有9个（29%）的31个荟萃分析包括个人参与者的数据从“灰色文献”（如未发表的研究）在其主要荟萃分析，和潜在的出版偏倚进行了讨论或调查，只有10个（32%）。31项荟萃分析中有16项（52%）没有获得所有要求的个体参与者数据，但其中5项（31%）没有提到这是一个潜在的限制，只有6项（38%）研究了没有个体参与者数据的试验如何影响结论。在9项（29%）荟萃分析中，评审员选择偏倚是一个潜在问题，因为相关试验的识别要么没有说明，要么基于更具选择性的非系统性方法。四个荟萃分析包含数据的调查>= 10试验发现一个不对称的漏斗图与出版偏差一致，并列入研究没有个人参与者的数据显示额外的异质性之间trials.Conclusions出版，可用性和选择偏差是一个潜在的关注为荟萃分析的个人参与者的数据，但许多评论家忽视检查或讨论它们。这些问题警告人们不要不加批判地将任何使用个体参与者数据的荟萃分析视为最可靠的。评价者应从系统评价确定的所有研究中寻找个体参与者数据;在可能的情况下，包括缺乏个体参与者数据的任何研究的汇总数据，以考虑其潜在影响;并根据最新指南调查漏斗图不对称性。
Objective To examine the potential for publication bias, data availability bias, and reviewer selection bias in recently published meta-analyses that use individual participant data and to investigate whether authors of such meta-analyses seemed aware of these issues.Design In a database of 383 meta-analyses of individual participant data that were published between 1991 and March 2009, we surveyed the 31 most recent meta-analyses of randomised trials that examined whether an intervention was effective. Identification of relevant articles and data extraction was undertaken by one author and checked by another.Results Only nine (29%) of the 31 meta-analyses included individual participant data from "grey literature" (such as unpublished studies) in their primary meta-analysis, and the potential for publication bias was discussed or investigated in just 10 (32%). Sixteen (52%) of the 31 meta-analyses did not obtain all the individual participant data requested, yet five of these (31%) did not mention this as a potential limitation, and only six (38%) examined how trials without individual participant data might affect the conclusions. In nine (29%) of the meta-analyses reviewer selection bias was a potential issue, as the identification of relevant trials was either not stated or based on a more selective, non-systematic approach. Investigation of four meta-analyses containing data from >= 10 trials revealed one with an asymmetric funnel plot consistent with publication bias, and the inclusion of studies without individual participant data revealed additional heterogeneity between trials.Conclusions Publication, availability, and selection biases are a potential concern for meta-analyses of individual participant data, but many reviewers neglect to examine or discuss them. These issues warn against uncritically viewing any meta-analysis that uses individual participant data as the most reliable. Reviewers should seek individual participant data from all studies identified by a systematic review; include, where possible, aggregate data from any studies lacking individual participant data to consider their potential impact; and investigate funnel plot asymmetry in line with recent guidelines.