Devji Tahira, Johnston Bradley C, Patrick Donald L, Bhandari Mohit, Thabane Lehana, Guyatt Gordon H
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Systematic Overviews through Advancing Research Technology (SORT), Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Research Institute, The Hospital For Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning, Toronto, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 27;7(9):e017138. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017138.
Meta-analyses of clinical trials often provide sufficient information for decision-makers to evaluate whether chance can explain apparent differences between interventions. Interpretation of the magnitude and importance of treatment effects beyond statistical significance can, however, be challenging, particularly for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measured using questionnaires with which clinicians have limited familiarity. The objectives of our study are to systematically evaluate Cochrane systematic review authors' approaches to calculation, reporting and interpretation of pooled estimates of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in meta-analyses.
We will conduct a methodological survey of a random sample of Cochrane systematic reviews published from 1 January 2015 to 1 April 2017 that report at least one statistically significant pooled result for at least one PRO in the abstract. Author pairs will independently review all titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the literature search, and they will extract data using a standardised data extraction form. We will extract the following: year of publication, number of included trials, number of included participants, clinical area, type of intervention(s) and control(s), type of meta-analysis and use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the quality of evidence, as well as information regarding the characteristics of PROMs, calculation and presentation of PROM effect estimates and interpretation of PROM effect estimates. We will document and summarise the methods used for the analysis, reporting and interpretation of each summary effect measure. We will summarise categorical variables with frequencies and percentages and continuous outcomes as means and/or medians and associated measures of dispersion.
Ethics approval for this study is not required. We will disseminate the results of this review in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.
临床试验的荟萃分析通常能为决策者提供足够信息,以评估机遇是否可以解释干预措施之间明显的差异。然而,对治疗效果的大小和重要性进行超出统计学显著性的解读可能具有挑战性,尤其是对于使用临床医生不太熟悉的问卷测量的患者报告结局(PRO)。我们研究的目的是系统评估Cochrane系统评价作者在荟萃分析中计算、报告和解释患者报告结局测量(PROM)合并估计值的方法。
我们将对2015年1月1日至2017年4月1日发表的Cochrane系统评价随机样本进行方法学调查,这些系统评价在摘要中报告了至少一项PRO的至少一个具有统计学显著性的合并结果。作者对将独立审查文献检索确定的所有标题、摘要和全文,并使用标准化数据提取表提取数据。我们将提取以下信息:发表年份、纳入试验数量、纳入参与者数量、临床领域、干预措施和对照的类型、荟萃分析类型以及使用推荐分级、评估、制定和评价方法对证据质量进行评级,以及有关PROM特征、PROM效应估计值的计算和呈现以及PROM效应估计值解释的信息。我们将记录并总结用于分析、报告和解释每个汇总效应量的方法。我们将用频率和百分比汇总分类变量,用均值和/或中位数以及相关离散度指标汇总连续结局。
本研究无需伦理批准。我们将在同行评审出版物和会议报告中传播本综述的结果。