Department of Public Health, POB 20 University of Helsinki, Tukholmankatu 8 B, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Critical Care and Medicine Departments and Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, University of Toronto and St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Syst Rev. 2019 Nov 19;8(1):282. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1183-5.
The relative scale adjusts for baseline variability and therefore may lead to findings that can be generalized more widely. It is routinely used for the analysis of binary outcomes but only rarely for continuous outcomes. Our objective was to compare relative vs absolute scale pooled outcomes using data from a recently published Cochrane systematic review that reported only absolute effects of inhaled β-agonists on exercise-induced decline in forced-expiratory volumes in 1 s (FEV).
From the Cochrane review, we selected placebo-controlled cross-over studies that reported individual participant data (IPD). Reversal in FEV decline after exercise was modeled as a mean uniform percentage point (pp) change (absolute effect) or average percent change (relative effect) using either intercept-only or slope-only, respectively, linear mixed-effect models. We also calculated the pooled relative effect estimates using standard random-effects, inverse-variance-weighting meta-analysis using study-level mean effects.
Fourteen studies with 187 participants were identified for the IPD analysis. On the absolute scale, β-agonists decreased the exercise-induced FEV decline by 28 pp., and on the relative scale, they decreased the FEV decline by 90%. The fit of the statistical model was significantly better with the relative 90% estimate compared with the absolute 28 pp. estimate. Furthermore, the median residuals (5.8 vs. 10.8 pp) were substantially smaller in the relative effect model than in the absolute effect model. Using standard study-level meta-analysis of the same 14 studies, β-agonists reduced exercise-induced FEV decline on the relative scale by a similar amount: 83% or 90%, depending on the method of calculating the relative effect.
Compared with the absolute scale, the relative scale captures more effectively the variation in the effects of β-agonists on exercise-induced FEV-declines. The absolute scale has been used in the analysis of FEV changes and may have led to sub-optimal statistical analysis in some cases. The choice between the absolute and relative scale should be determined based on biological reasoning and empirical testing to identify the scale that leads to lower heterogeneity.
相对标度可调整基线变异性,因此可能会得出更广泛推广的发现。它通常用于分析二项结果,但很少用于连续结果。我们的目的是使用最近发表的 Cochrane 系统评价中仅报告吸入β激动剂对 1 秒用力呼气量(FEV)运动诱发下降的绝对效应的数据,比较相对标度与绝对标度的汇总结果。
从 Cochrane 综述中,我们选择了报告个体参与者数据(IPD)的安慰剂对照交叉研究。使用线性混合效应模型分别仅使用截距或斜率,将运动后 FEV 下降的逆转建模为平均统一百分点(pp)变化(绝对效应)或平均百分比变化(相对效应)。我们还使用标准随机效应、基于研究水平均值效应的倒数方差加权荟萃分析,计算汇总相对效应估计值。
我们确定了 14 项研究的 IPD 分析,共纳入 187 名参与者。在绝对标度上,β激动剂使运动引起的 FEV 下降减少了 28pp,而在相对标度上,下降了 90%。与绝对 28pp 估计值相比,相对 90%估计值的统计模型拟合更好。此外,相对效应模型的中位数残差(5.8 与 10.8pp)明显小于绝对效应模型。使用相同的 14 项研究的标准研究水平荟萃分析,β激动剂在相对标度上使运动引起的 FEV 下降减少了相似的量:83%或 90%,这取决于相对效应的计算方法。
与绝对标度相比,相对标度更有效地捕捉了β激动剂对运动引起的 FEV 下降的影响变化。绝对标度已用于 FEV 变化的分析,在某些情况下可能导致次优的统计分析。应该根据生物学推理和经验测试来确定绝对和相对标度之间的选择,以确定导致更低异质性的标度。