Suppr超能文献

高血压与运动训练的Meta分析中的统计异质性:一项Meta综述。

Statistical heterogeneity in meta-analysis of hypertension and exercise training: A meta-review.

作者信息

Teixeira Jorge M M, Roever Leonardo, Ramasamy Akilesh, Pereira Rita, Carneiro Ivone, Krustrup Peter, Póvoas Susana C A

机构信息

Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development (CIDESD), University of Maia, Maia, Portugal.

Department of Clinical Research, Brazilian Evidence-Based Health Network, Uberlândia, Brazil.

出版信息

J Sports Sci. 2023 Nov;41(22):2033-2044. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2024.2309055. Epub 2024 Feb 11.

Abstract

We aim to evaluate the prevalence of reporting and the extent of statistical heterogeneity of systematic reviews with meta-analyses (SRMAs) of exercise training for hypertension and to provide practical recommendations for dealing with statistical heterogeneity. We systematically searched on four databases (from 2002 to September of 2023) for SRMAs comparing exercise interventions vs. a non-exercise control on blood pressure (BP) control in adults with hypertension. Fifty-nine SRMAs, with a median of 14 studies, were analysed. Cochran's Q (41%), I (24%), forest plots (44%), and particularly τ (54%) and prediction intervals (96.6%) frequently were not reported for the hypertension subgroup. The recalculated prediction intervals were discrepant (i.e., crossed the null effect) of significant 95% confidence intervals of most meta-analyses (systolic BP: 65%; diastolic BP: 92%). This suggests substantial heterogeneity across studies, which was often not acknowledged by authors' conclusions (78%). Consequently, downgrading the certainty of the available evidence may be justified alone due to heterogeneity across studies. Finally, we illustrate areas for improving I interpretation and provide practical recommendations on how to address statistical heterogeneity across all stages of a SRMA.

摘要

我们旨在评估高血压运动训练的系统评价与荟萃分析(SRMAs)的报告患病率以及统计异质性程度,并为处理统计异质性提供实用建议。我们在四个数据库中进行了系统检索(从2002年至2023年9月),以查找比较运动干预与非运动对照对高血压成人血压(BP)控制效果的SRMAs。共分析了59项SRMAs,每项的研究中位数为14项。高血压亚组中,Cochran's Q(41%)、I²(24%)、森林图(44%),尤其是τ²(54%)和预测区间(96.6%)常常未被报告。重新计算的预测区间与大多数荟萃分析的显著95%置信区间不一致(即交叉了无效效应)(收缩压:65%;舒张压:92%)。这表明各研究间存在实质性异质性,但作者的结论中往往未承认这一点(78%)。因此,仅因研究间的异质性,降低现有证据的确定性可能是合理的。最后,我们阐述了改进I²解释的领域,并就如何在SRMA的各个阶段处理统计异质性提供了实用建议。

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