Bolland Mark J, Grey Andrew
Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92 019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 31;9(12):e115934. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115934. eCollection 2014.
Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic are now very common, and discordant results often occur. To explore why discordant results arise, we examined a common topic for overlapping meta-analyses- vitamin D supplements and fracture.
We identified 24 meta-analyses of vitamin D (with or without calcium) and fracture in a PubMed search in October 2013, and analysed a sample of 7 meta-analyses in the highest ranking general medicine journals. We used the AMSTAR tool to assess the quality of the meta-analyses, and compared their methodologies, analytic techniques and results. Applying the AMSTAR tool suggested the meta-analyses were generally of high quality. Despite this, there were important differences in trial selection, data extraction, and analytical methods that were only apparent after detailed assessment. 25 trials were included in at least one meta-analysis. Four meta-analyses included all eligible trials according to the stated inclusion and exclusion criteria, but the other 3 meta-analyses "missed" between 3 and 8 trials, and 2 meta-analyses included apparently ineligible trials. The relative risks used for individual trials differed between meta-analyses for total fracture in 10 of 15 trials, and for hip fracture in 6 of 12 trials, because of different outcome definitions and analytic approaches. The majority of differences (11/16) led to more favourable estimates of vitamin D efficacy compared to estimates derived from unadjusted intention-to-treat analyses using all randomised participants. The conclusions of the meta-analyses were discordant, ranging from strong statements that vitamin D prevents fractures to equally strong statements that vitamin D without calcium does not prevent fractures.
Substantial differences in trial selection, outcome definition and analytic methods between overlapping meta-analyses led to discordant estimates of the efficacy of vitamin D for fracture prevention. Strategies for conducting and reporting overlapping meta-analyses are required, to improve their accuracy and transparency.
针对同一主题的重叠性荟萃分析如今非常普遍,且常常出现不一致的结果。为探究为何会出现不一致的结果,我们研究了重叠性荟萃分析的一个常见主题——维生素D补充剂与骨折。
我们于2013年10月在PubMed数据库中检索,确定了24项关于维生素D(含或不含钙)与骨折的荟萃分析,并分析了排名最靠前的综合医学期刊上的7项荟萃分析样本。我们使用AMSTAR工具评估荟萃分析的质量,并比较它们的方法、分析技术和结果。应用AMSTAR工具表明这些荟萃分析总体质量较高。尽管如此,在详细评估后才发现,在试验选择、数据提取和分析方法方面存在重要差异。至少一项荟萃分析纳入了25项试验。四项荟萃分析根据既定的纳入和排除标准纳入了所有符合条件的试验,但其他三项荟萃分析“遗漏”了3至8项试验,还有两项荟萃分析纳入了明显不符合条件的试验。由于结局定义和分析方法不同,15项试验中有10项试验的总骨折个体试验相对风险在不同荟萃分析中存在差异,12项试验中有6项试验的髋部骨折个体试验相对风险在不同荟萃分析中存在差异。与使用所有随机参与者的未调整意向性分析得出的估计值相比,大多数差异(11/16)导致对维生素D疗效的估计更为有利。荟萃分析的结论不一致,从强有力地表明维生素D可预防骨折到同样强有力地表明不含钙的维生素D不能预防骨折。
重叠性荟萃分析在试验选择、结局定义和分析方法上的实质性差异导致对维生素D预防骨折疗效的估计不一致。需要制定进行和报告重叠性荟萃分析的策略,以提高其准确性和透明度。