Abbreviated and comprehensive literature searches led to identical or very similar effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study
Abbreviated and comprehensive literature searches led to identical or very similar effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.08.002
复制
发表时间：
2020-12-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Hemkens, Lars G.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ewald, Hannah;Klerings, Irma;Hemkens, Lars G.
目的：本研究的目的是评估基于简短或全面文献检索的荟萃分析的治疗效果估计的一致性。研究设计和背景：这是一项荟萃流行病学研究。我们简化了47篇综合Cochrane综述检索，并单独检索MEDLINE/Embase/CENTRAL，合并或不检查参考文献（658篇新检索）。我们将每篇综述的一项荟萃分析与基于简化搜索的重新计算的荟萃分析进行了比较。结果：47项原始荟萃分析包括444项试验（每篇综述中位数为6项[四分位间距（IQR） 3-11]）， 360045名受试者（每篇综述中位数为1371名[IQR 685- 8041]）。根据搜索方法的不同，在34-79%的meta分析中，缩略搜索导致相同的效应估计，15-51%的meta分析导致不同的效应估计，但方向和统计显著性水平相同，6-13%的meta分析导致相反的效应（或无法再估计效应）。50%的meta分析的效应值偏差为零，75%的meta分析的效应值偏差不大于1.07倍。简略搜索的效果估计并不总是更小或更大（优势比中位数为1 [IQR 1-1.01]），而是更不精确（标准误差大1.02-1.06倍）。结论：简略文献检索通常与综合检索得到相同或非常相似的效果估计，但置信区间略有增加。可能会出现相关偏差。(C) 2020作者。Elsevier Inc.出版。
Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the agreement of treatment effect estimates from meta-analyses based on abbreviated or comprehensive literature searches.Study Design and Setting: This was a meta-epidemiological study. We abbreviated 47 comprehensive Cochrane review searches and searched MEDLINE/Embase/CENTRAL alone, in combination, with/without checking references (658 new searches). We compared one meta-analysis from each review with recalculated ones based on abbreviated searches.Results: The 47 original meta-analyses included 444 trials (median 6 per review [interquartile range (IQR) 3-11]) with 360045 participants (median 1,371 per review [IQR 685-8,041]). Depending on the search approach, abbreviated searches led to identical effect estimates in 34-79% of meta-analyses, to different effect estimates with the same direction and level of statistical significance in 15-51%, and to opposite effects (or effects could not be estimated anymore) in 6-13%. The deviation of effect sizes was zero in 50% of the meta analyses and in 75% not larger than 1.07-fold. Effect estimates of abbreviated searches were not consistently smaller or larger (median ratio of odds ratio 1 [IQR 1-1.01]) but more imprecise (1.02-1.06-fold larger standard errors).Conclusion: Abbreviated literature searches often led to identical or very similar effect estimates as comprehensive searches with slightly increased confidence intervals. Relevant deviations may occur. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.