Prediction Performance of Earlier Studies for Later Studies in Cochrane Reviews

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Fahad M. Al Amer, Lifeng Lin
{"title":"Prediction Performance of Earlier Studies for Later Studies in Cochrane Reviews","authors":"Fahad M. Al Amer,&nbsp;Lifeng Lin","doi":"10.1111/jep.70172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>Between-study heterogeneity poses challenges to the generalisability of meta-analytical results, which can influence their ability to predict outcomes in future studies. Prediction intervals have been proposed to account for both uncertainty and heterogeneity, yet their real-world performance in predicting future studies has not been systematically evaluated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims and Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This study aims to assess the prediction performance of meta-analyses, focusing on how effectively they predict later study results based on meta-analyses of earlier studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This empirical study used a comprehensive collection of meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Through in-sample evaluation, the success of predicting later study results was assessed based on meta-analyses of earlier studies in Cochrane reviews. The impact of factors such as the number of studies in the meta-analysis and uncertainties in heterogeneity estimation was also analysed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The findings reveal that prediction failures are common, particularly as the number of studies in the meta-analysis increases. This may be attributed to uncertainties in estimating between-study heterogeneity. Conversely, when the number of studies is small, the proportion of successful predictions is high. However, this is likely due to large uncertainties in predictions and the limited information provided by fewer studies, which may reduce their utility in providing valuable evidence for future studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>These results underscore the importance of cautious interpretation and further investigation when applying meta-analytical findings to future studies. Our findings suggest several potential strategies for predicting future study results through evidence synthesis, with particular emphasis on carefully considering between-study heterogeneity, the number of studies included in a meta-analysis, and the temporal trends in individual study results.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70172","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale

Between-study heterogeneity poses challenges to the generalisability of meta-analytical results, which can influence their ability to predict outcomes in future studies. Prediction intervals have been proposed to account for both uncertainty and heterogeneity, yet their real-world performance in predicting future studies has not been systematically evaluated.

Aims and Objectives

This study aims to assess the prediction performance of meta-analyses, focusing on how effectively they predict later study results based on meta-analyses of earlier studies.

Methods

This empirical study used a comprehensive collection of meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Through in-sample evaluation, the success of predicting later study results was assessed based on meta-analyses of earlier studies in Cochrane reviews. The impact of factors such as the number of studies in the meta-analysis and uncertainties in heterogeneity estimation was also analysed.

Results

The findings reveal that prediction failures are common, particularly as the number of studies in the meta-analysis increases. This may be attributed to uncertainties in estimating between-study heterogeneity. Conversely, when the number of studies is small, the proportion of successful predictions is high. However, this is likely due to large uncertainties in predictions and the limited information provided by fewer studies, which may reduce their utility in providing valuable evidence for future studies.

Conclusions

These results underscore the importance of cautious interpretation and further investigation when applying meta-analytical findings to future studies. Our findings suggest several potential strategies for predicting future study results through evidence synthesis, with particular emphasis on carefully considering between-study heterogeneity, the number of studies included in a meta-analysis, and the temporal trends in individual study results.

Cochrane综述中早期研究对后期研究的预测性能
研究间异质性对meta分析结果的通用性提出了挑战,这可能会影响其预测未来研究结果的能力。已经提出了预测区间来解释不确定性和异质性,但它们在预测未来研究中的实际表现尚未得到系统评估。本研究旨在评估荟萃分析的预测性能,重点关注它们如何有效地预测基于早期研究的荟萃分析的后续研究结果。方法本实证研究采用Cochrane系统评价数据库的综合荟萃分析。通过样本内评价,基于Cochrane综述中早期研究的荟萃分析来评估预测后续研究结果的成功程度。meta分析中的研究数量和异质性估计中的不确定性等因素的影响也进行了分析。结果研究结果表明,预测失败是常见的,特别是随着meta分析中研究数量的增加。这可能归因于估计研究间异质性的不确定性。相反,当研究数量较少时,成功预测的比例很高。然而,这可能是由于预测存在很大的不确定性以及较少的研究提供的有限信息,这可能会降低它们在为未来研究提供有价值证据方面的效用。这些结果强调了在将meta分析结果应用于未来研究时谨慎解释和进一步调查的重要性。我们的研究结果提出了几种通过证据综合预测未来研究结果的潜在策略,特别强调仔细考虑研究之间的异质性、meta分析中纳入的研究数量以及单个研究结果的时间趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信