在肿瘤学中进行和报告随机效应荟萃分析的适当性。

IF 5 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Jinma Ren, Jia Ma, Joseph C. Cappelleri
{"title":"在肿瘤学中进行和报告随机效应荟萃分析的适当性。","authors":"Jinma Ren,&nbsp;Jia Ma,&nbsp;Joseph C. Cappelleri","doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1702","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A random-effects model is often applied in meta-analysis when considerable heterogeneity among studies is observed due to the differences in patient characteristics, timeframe, treatment regimens, and other study characteristics. Since 2014, the journals <i>Research Synthesis Methods</i> and the <i>Annals of Internal Medicine</i> have published a few noteworthy papers that explained why the most widely used method for pooling heterogeneous studies—the DerSimonian–Laird (DL) estimator—can produce biased estimates with falsely high precision and recommended to use other several alternative methods. Nevertheless, more than half of studies (55.7%) published in top oncology-specific journals during 2015–2022 did not report any detailed method in the random-effects meta-analysis. Of the studies that did report the methodology used, the DL method was still the dominant one reported. Thus, while the authors recommend that <i>Research Synthesis Methods</i> and the <i>Annals of Internal Medicine</i> continue to increase the publication of its articles that report on specific methods for handling heterogeneity and use random-effects estimates that provide more accurate confidence limits than the DL estimator, other journals that publish meta-analyses in oncology (and presumably in other disease areas) are urged to do the same on a much larger scale than currently documented.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"15 2","pages":"326-331"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Appropriateness of conducting and reporting random-effects meta-analysis in oncology\",\"authors\":\"Jinma Ren,&nbsp;Jia Ma,&nbsp;Joseph C. Cappelleri\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jrsm.1702\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>A random-effects model is often applied in meta-analysis when considerable heterogeneity among studies is observed due to the differences in patient characteristics, timeframe, treatment regimens, and other study characteristics. Since 2014, the journals <i>Research Synthesis Methods</i> and the <i>Annals of Internal Medicine</i> have published a few noteworthy papers that explained why the most widely used method for pooling heterogeneous studies—the DerSimonian–Laird (DL) estimator—can produce biased estimates with falsely high precision and recommended to use other several alternative methods. Nevertheless, more than half of studies (55.7%) published in top oncology-specific journals during 2015–2022 did not report any detailed method in the random-effects meta-analysis. Of the studies that did report the methodology used, the DL method was still the dominant one reported. Thus, while the authors recommend that <i>Research Synthesis Methods</i> and the <i>Annals of Internal Medicine</i> continue to increase the publication of its articles that report on specific methods for handling heterogeneity and use random-effects estimates that provide more accurate confidence limits than the DL estimator, other journals that publish meta-analyses in oncology (and presumably in other disease areas) are urged to do the same on a much larger scale than currently documented.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":226,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Synthesis Methods\",\"volume\":\"15 2\",\"pages\":\"326-331\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Synthesis Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1702\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1702","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于患者特征、时间框架、治疗方案和其他研究特征的差异,当观察到研究之间存在相当大的异质性时,随机效应模型通常被应用于荟萃分析。自2014年以来,《研究综合方法》(Research Synthesis Methods)杂志和《内科学年鉴》(Annals of Internal Medicine)杂志发表了几篇值得关注的论文,解释了为什么最广泛使用的异质性研究集合方法--DerSimonian-Laird(DL)估计器--会产生有偏差的估计值和虚假的高精度,并建议使用其他几种替代方法。然而,2015-2022年间发表在顶级肿瘤学期刊上的一半以上(55.7%)研究并未报告随机效应荟萃分析的任何详细方法。在报告了所用方法的研究中,DL 方法仍是报告的主要方法。因此,作者建议《研究综合方法》和《内科学年鉴》继续增加发表文章,报告处理异质性的具体方法,并使用随机效应估计值,提供比DL估计值更准确的置信区间,同时敦促其他发表肿瘤学(可能还有其他疾病领域)荟萃分析的期刊也这样做,而且规模要比目前记录的大得多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Appropriateness of conducting and reporting random-effects meta-analysis in oncology

A random-effects model is often applied in meta-analysis when considerable heterogeneity among studies is observed due to the differences in patient characteristics, timeframe, treatment regimens, and other study characteristics. Since 2014, the journals Research Synthesis Methods and the Annals of Internal Medicine have published a few noteworthy papers that explained why the most widely used method for pooling heterogeneous studies—the DerSimonian–Laird (DL) estimator—can produce biased estimates with falsely high precision and recommended to use other several alternative methods. Nevertheless, more than half of studies (55.7%) published in top oncology-specific journals during 2015–2022 did not report any detailed method in the random-effects meta-analysis. Of the studies that did report the methodology used, the DL method was still the dominant one reported. Thus, while the authors recommend that Research Synthesis Methods and the Annals of Internal Medicine continue to increase the publication of its articles that report on specific methods for handling heterogeneity and use random-effects estimates that provide more accurate confidence limits than the DL estimator, other journals that publish meta-analyses in oncology (and presumably in other disease areas) are urged to do the same on a much larger scale than currently documented.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信