Suppr超能文献

研究规模对荟萃分析的影响:考科蓝评价中检验低效能研究。

The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews.

机构信息

MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59202. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059202. Epub 2013 Mar 27.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Most meta-analyses include data from one or more small studies that, individually, do not have power to detect an intervention effect. The relative influence of adequately powered and underpowered studies in published meta-analyses has not previously been explored. We examine the distribution of power available in studies within meta-analyses published in Cochrane reviews, and investigate the impact of underpowered studies on meta-analysis results.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

For 14,886 meta-analyses of binary outcomes from 1,991 Cochrane reviews, we calculated power per study within each meta-analysis. We defined adequate power as ≥50% power to detect a 30% relative risk reduction. In a subset of 1,107 meta-analyses including 5 or more studies with at least two adequately powered and at least one underpowered, results were compared with and without underpowered studies. In 10,492 (70%) of 14,886 meta-analyses, all included studies were underpowered; only 2,588 (17%) included at least two adequately powered studies. 34% of the meta-analyses themselves were adequately powered. The median of summary relative risks was 0.75 across all meta-analyses (inter-quartile range 0.55 to 0.89). In the subset examined, odds ratios in underpowered studies were 15% lower (95% CI 11% to 18%, P<0.0001) than in adequately powered studies, in meta-analyses of controlled pharmacological trials; and 12% lower (95% CI 7% to 17%, P<0.0001) in meta-analyses of controlled non-pharmacological trials. The standard error of the intervention effect increased by a median of 11% (inter-quartile range -1% to 35%) when underpowered studies were omitted; and between-study heterogeneity tended to decrease.

CONCLUSIONS

When at least two adequately powered studies are available in meta-analyses reported by Cochrane reviews, underpowered studies often contribute little information, and could be left out if a rapid review of the evidence is required. However, underpowered studies made up the entirety of the evidence in most Cochrane reviews.

摘要

背景

大多数荟萃分析包含来自一个或多个小研究的数据,这些研究单独进行时没有能力检测到干预效果。以前没有探讨过已发表的荟萃分析中充分有力和力不足的研究的相对影响。我们检查了发表在 Cochrane 综述中的荟萃分析中研究的可用效力分布,并研究了力不足的研究对荟萃分析结果的影响。

方法和发现

对于来自 1991 项 Cochrane 综述的 14886 项二分类结局的荟萃分析,我们计算了每个荟萃分析中每项研究的效力。我们将充分效力定义为具有检测 30%相对风险降低的≥50%效力。在包括 5 项或更多研究的 1107 项荟萃分析的一个子集(至少有两个充分有力和至少一个力不足)中,结果与有无力不足的研究进行了比较。在 14886 项荟萃分析中的 10492 项(70%)中,所有纳入的研究均力不足;只有 2588 项(17%)纳入了至少两个充分有力的研究。34%的荟萃分析本身具有充分的效力。所有荟萃分析的中位数汇总相对风险为 0.75(四分位距 0.55 至 0.89)。在检查的子集中,在力不足的研究中,比值比降低了 15%(95%CI 11%至 18%,P<0.0001),而在对照药理学试验的荟萃分析中,在对照非药理学试验的荟萃分析中降低了 12%(95%CI 7%至 17%,P<0.0001)。当排除力不足的研究时,干预效果的标准误差中位数增加了 11%(四分位距-1%至 35%);并且研究间异质性往往会降低。

结论

当 Cochrane 综述报告的荟萃分析中至少有两个充分有力的研究可用时,力不足的研究通常提供的信息很少,如果需要快速审查证据,可以将其排除在外。然而,在大多数 Cochrane 综述中,力不足的研究构成了全部证据。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/eb6b/3609745/c2bcced9f49e/pone.0059202.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验