How much of the data published in observational studies of the association between diet and prostate or bladder cancer is usable for meta-analysis?
How much of the data published in observational studies of the association between diet and prostate or bladder cancer is usable for meta-analysis?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/aje/kwn005
复制
发表时间：
2008-05-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Sterne, Jonathan A. C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bekkering, Geertruida E.;Harris, Ross J.;Sterne, Jonathan A. C.
流行病学调查经常报告剂量反应关联，这些关联可以在荟萃分析中结合起来。作者研究了如何根据饮食和前列腺癌或膀胱癌的观察性研究报告的结果来估计每单位暴露量增加的对数优势、风险或风险比及其标准误差，以便结果可用于估计剂量反应关联的荟萃分析。在八个电子数据库中检索了有关饮食、营养或身体活动与这些癌症之间关系的研究报告。共有 767 篇论文报告了 3,284 个结果； 545 篇 (71%) 篇论文中报道的 1,999 项 (61%) 结果可用于剂量反应荟萃分析。结果无法使用的最重要原因是缺乏有关不同群体暴露水平的足够信息。可用于“高-低”荟萃分析（极端类别比较）的结果比例相似（62%）。显示关联证据的结果比没有发现此类证据的结果更有可能有用。观察性研究结果报告的细节不足可能会导致这些结果被排除在荟萃分析之外，并且对此类研究的系统评价的有效性构成重要威胁。提供关联证据的结果可能在观察性研究的荟萃分析中被过度代表。
Epidemiologic investigations often report dose-response associations, which may be combined in meta-analyses. The authors examined how often the log odds, risk, or hazard ratio per unit increase in exposure, and its standard error, can be estimated from results reported from observational studies of diet and prostate or bladder cancer so that results are usable in meta-analyses estimating dose-response associations. Eight electronic databases were searched for studies reporting on the association of diet, nutrition, or physical activity with these cancers. A total of 767 papers reported 3,284 results; 1,999 (61%) results, reported in 545 (71%) papers, were usable in dose-response meta-analyses. The most important reason that results were not usable was the absence of sufficient information on exposure levels in the different groups. The proportion of results usable in "high-low" meta-analyses (comparisons of extreme categories) was similar (62%). Results that showed evidence of an association were more likely to be usable than results that found no such evidence. Insufficient detail in reporting of results of observational studies can lead to exclusion of these results from meta-analyses and is an important threat to the validity of systematic reviews of such research. Results providing evidence of associations may be overrepresented in meta-analyses of observational studies.