Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
BMJ Open. 2022 Aug 29;12(8):e060183. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060183.
We consider expert opinion and its incorporation into a planned meta-analysis as a way of adjusting for anticipated publication bias. We conduct an elicitation exercise among eligible British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) members with expertise in gynaecology.
Expert elicitation exercise.
BGCS.
Members of the BGCS with expertise in gynaecology.
Experts were presented with details of a planned prospective systematic review and meta-analysis, assessing overall survival for the extent of excision of residual disease (RD) after primary surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Participants were asked views on the likelihood of different studies (varied in the size of the study population and the RD thresholds being compared) not being published. Descriptive statistics were produced and opinions on total number of missing studies by sample size and magnitude of effect size estimated.
Eighteen expert respondents were included. Responders perceived publication bias to be a possibility for comparisons of RD <1 cm versus RD=0 cm, but more so for comparisons involving higher volume suboptimal RD thresholds. However, experts' perceived publication bias in comparisons of RD=0 cm versus suboptimal RD thresholds did not translate into many elicited missing studies in Part B of the elicitation exercise. The median number of missing studies estimated by responders for the main comparison of RD<1 cm versus RD=0 cm was 10 (IQR: 5-20), with the number of missing studies influenced by whether the effect size was equivocal. The median number of missing studies estimated for suboptimal RD versus RD=0 cm was lower.
The results may raise awareness that a degree of scepticism is needed when reviewing studies comparing RD <1 cm versus RD=0 cm. There is also a belief among respondents that comparisons involving RD=0 cm and suboptimal thresholds (>1 cm) are likely to be impacted by publication bias, but this is unlikely to attenuate effect estimates in meta-analyses.
我们认为专家意见及其纳入计划中的荟萃分析是一种调整预期发表偏倚的方法。我们在具有妇科专长的合格英国妇科癌症学会（BGCS）成员中进行了一项启发式研究。
专家启发式研究。
BGCS。
具有妇科专长的 BGCS 成员。
专家们获得了一项计划中的前瞻性系统评价和荟萃分析的详细信息，评估了原发性手术治疗晚期上皮性卵巢癌后残留疾病（RD）切除范围对总生存的影响。参与者被要求对不同研究（研究人群大小和比较的 RD 阈值不同）未发表的可能性发表意见。生成了描述性统计数据，并根据样本量和效应大小估计值估算了缺失研究的总数。
纳入了 18 位专家应答者。应答者认为 RD<1cm 与 RD=0cm 之间的比较存在发表偏倚的可能性，但涉及更高体积的次优 RD 阈值的比较则更有可能存在发表偏倚。然而，专家对 RD=0cm 与次优 RD 阈值之间的比较中存在发表偏倚的看法，并没有转化为启发式研究第二部分中许多缺失的研究。应答者估计的主要比较 RD<1cm 与 RD=0cm 的缺失研究中位数为 10（IQR：5-20），缺失研究的数量受效应大小是否不确定的影响。对于次优 RD 与 RD=0cm 的比较，估计的缺失研究中位数较低。
结果可能会引起人们的注意，即在比较 RD<1cm 与 RD=0cm 的研究时，需要一定程度的怀疑。应答者还认为，涉及 RD=0cm 和次优阈值（>1cm）的比较可能受到发表偏倚的影响，但这不太可能削弱荟萃分析中的效应估计值。
