低、中、高对照组事件发生率人群中相对治疗效果的差异:一项荟萃流行病学研究。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
M Hassan Murad, Zhen Wang, Mengli Xiao, Haitao Chu, Lifeng Lin
{"title":"低、中、高对照组事件发生率人群中相对治疗效果的差异:一项荟萃流行病学研究。","authors":"M Hassan Murad, Zhen Wang, Mengli Xiao, Haitao Chu, Lifeng Lin","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02388-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The current practice in guideline development is to use the control group event rate (CR) as a surrogate of baseline risk and to assume portability of the relative treatment effect across populations with low, moderate and high baseline risk. We sought to emulate this practice in a very large sample of meta-analyses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrieved data from all meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2003-2020) that evaluated a binary outcome, reported 2 × 2 data for each individual study and included at least 4 studies. We excluded studies with no events. We conducted meta-analyses with odds ratios and relative risks and performed subgroup analyses based on tertiles of CR. In sensitivity analyses, we evaluated the use of total event rate (TR) instead of CR and using quartiles instead of tertiles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included 2,531 systematic reviews (27,692 meta-analyses, 226,975 studies, 25,669,783 patients).The percentages of meta-analyses with statistically significant interaction (P < 0.05) based on CR tertile or quartile ranged 12-18% across various sensitivity analyses. This percentage increased as the number of studies or range of CR per meta-analysis increased, reflecting increased power of the subgroup test. The percentages of meta-analyses with statistically significant interaction (P < 0.05) with TR quantiles were lower than those with CR but remained higher than expected by chance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This analysis suggests that when CR or TR are used as surrogates for baseline risk, relative treatment effects may not be portable across populations with varying baseline risks in many meta-analyses. Categroization of the continuous CR variable and not addressing measurement error limit inferences from such analyses and imply that CR is an undesirable source for baseline risk. Guideline developers and decision-makers should be provided with relative and absolute treatment effects that are conditioned on the baseline risk or derived from studies with similar baseline risk to their target populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11529075/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Variability of relative treatment effect among populations with low, moderate and high control group event rates: a meta-epidemiological study.\",\"authors\":\"M Hassan Murad, Zhen Wang, Mengli Xiao, Haitao Chu, Lifeng Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12874-024-02388-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The current practice in guideline development is to use the control group event rate (CR) as a surrogate of baseline risk and to assume portability of the relative treatment effect across populations with low, moderate and high baseline risk. We sought to emulate this practice in a very large sample of meta-analyses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrieved data from all meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2003-2020) that evaluated a binary outcome, reported 2 × 2 data for each individual study and included at least 4 studies. We excluded studies with no events. We conducted meta-analyses with odds ratios and relative risks and performed subgroup analyses based on tertiles of CR. In sensitivity analyses, we evaluated the use of total event rate (TR) instead of CR and using quartiles instead of tertiles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included 2,531 systematic reviews (27,692 meta-analyses, 226,975 studies, 25,669,783 patients).The percentages of meta-analyses with statistically significant interaction (P < 0.05) based on CR tertile or quartile ranged 12-18% across various sensitivity analyses. This percentage increased as the number of studies or range of CR per meta-analysis increased, reflecting increased power of the subgroup test. The percentages of meta-analyses with statistically significant interaction (P < 0.05) with TR quantiles were lower than those with CR but remained higher than expected by chance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This analysis suggests that when CR or TR are used as surrogates for baseline risk, relative treatment effects may not be portable across populations with varying baseline risks in many meta-analyses. Categroization of the continuous CR variable and not addressing measurement error limit inferences from such analyses and imply that CR is an undesirable source for baseline risk. Guideline developers and decision-makers should be provided with relative and absolute treatment effects that are conditioned on the baseline risk or derived from studies with similar baseline risk to their target populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11529075/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02388-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02388-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:指南制定的现行做法是使用对照组事件发生率(CR)作为基线风险的代用指标,并假定相对治疗效果在低、中、高基线风险人群中的可移植性。我们试图在大量的荟萃分析样本中效仿这一做法:我们检索了科克伦系统综述数据库(2003-2020 年)中发表的所有荟萃分析数据,这些数据评估了二元结果,报告了每项研究的 2 × 2 数据,并至少纳入了 4 项研究。我们排除了无事件的研究。我们用几率比和相对风险进行了荟萃分析,并根据 CR 的 tertiles 进行了亚组分析。在敏感性分析中,我们评估了使用总事件率(TR)代替CR以及使用四分位数代替三分位数的情况:分析包括 2,531 篇系统综述(27,692 项元分析,226,975 项研究,25,669,783 名患者):该分析表明,当使用 CR 或 TR 作为基线风险的替代指标时,在许多荟萃分析中,基线风险不同的人群的相对治疗效果可能并不可移植。对连续 CR 变量进行分类以及不解决测量误差问题限制了此类分析的推论,并暗示 CR 是基线风险的不理想来源。应向指南制定者和决策者提供以基线风险为条件的相对和绝对治疗效果,或从与目标人群基线风险相似的研究中得出的相对和绝对治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Variability of relative treatment effect among populations with low, moderate and high control group event rates: a meta-epidemiological study.

Background: The current practice in guideline development is to use the control group event rate (CR) as a surrogate of baseline risk and to assume portability of the relative treatment effect across populations with low, moderate and high baseline risk. We sought to emulate this practice in a very large sample of meta-analyses.

Methods: We retrieved data from all meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2003-2020) that evaluated a binary outcome, reported 2 × 2 data for each individual study and included at least 4 studies. We excluded studies with no events. We conducted meta-analyses with odds ratios and relative risks and performed subgroup analyses based on tertiles of CR. In sensitivity analyses, we evaluated the use of total event rate (TR) instead of CR and using quartiles instead of tertiles.

Results: The analysis included 2,531 systematic reviews (27,692 meta-analyses, 226,975 studies, 25,669,783 patients).The percentages of meta-analyses with statistically significant interaction (P < 0.05) based on CR tertile or quartile ranged 12-18% across various sensitivity analyses. This percentage increased as the number of studies or range of CR per meta-analysis increased, reflecting increased power of the subgroup test. The percentages of meta-analyses with statistically significant interaction (P < 0.05) with TR quantiles were lower than those with CR but remained higher than expected by chance.

Conclusion: This analysis suggests that when CR or TR are used as surrogates for baseline risk, relative treatment effects may not be portable across populations with varying baseline risks in many meta-analyses. Categroization of the continuous CR variable and not addressing measurement error limit inferences from such analyses and imply that CR is an undesirable source for baseline risk. Guideline developers and decision-makers should be provided with relative and absolute treatment effects that are conditioned on the baseline risk or derived from studies with similar baseline risk to their target populations.

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
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
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