用两个新指标的决策阈值定量评估meta分析的不一致性。

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Bernardo Sousa-Pinto , Ignacio Neumann , Rafael José Vieira , Antonio Bognanni , Manuel Marques-Cruz , Sara Gil-Mata , Simone Mordue , Clareece Nevill , Gianluca Baio , Paul Whaley , Guido Schwarzer , James Steele , Gavin Stewart , Holger J. Schünemann , Luís Filipe Azevedo
{"title":"用两个新指标的决策阈值定量评估meta分析的不一致性。","authors":"Bernardo Sousa-Pinto ,&nbsp;Ignacio Neumann ,&nbsp;Rafael José Vieira ,&nbsp;Antonio Bognanni ,&nbsp;Manuel Marques-Cruz ,&nbsp;Sara Gil-Mata ,&nbsp;Simone Mordue ,&nbsp;Clareece Nevill ,&nbsp;Gianluca Baio ,&nbsp;Paul Whaley ,&nbsp;Guido Schwarzer ,&nbsp;James Steele ,&nbsp;Gavin Stewart ,&nbsp;Holger J. Schünemann ,&nbsp;Luís Filipe Azevedo","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>In evidence synthesis, inconsistency is typically assessed visually and with the <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> and the Q statistics. However, these measures have important limitations (i) if there are few primary studies of small sample sizes or (ii) if there are multiple studies with precise estimates. In addition, with the increasing use of decision thresholds (DT), for example in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks, inconsistency judgments can be anchored around DTs. In this article, we developed quantitative measures to assess inconsistency based on DTs.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>We developed two measures to quantify inconsistency based on DTs – the decision inconsistency (<em>DI</em>) and the across-studies inconsistency (<em>ASI</em>) indices. The <em>DI</em> and the <em>ASI</em> are based on the distribution of the posterior samples studies’ effect sizes (ES) across interpretation categories defined by DTs. We developed these indices for the Bayesian context, followed by a frequentist extension.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The <em>DI</em> informs on the <em>overall inconsistency of ESs</em> across interpretation categories, while the <em>ASI</em> quantifies how <em>different</em> studies are compared to each other (in relation to interpretation categories) based on absolute effects. A <em>DI</em> ≥ 50% and an ASI ≥ 25% are suggestive of important inconsistency. We provide an R package (metainc) and a web tool (<span><span>https://metainc.med.up.pt/</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>) to support the computation of the <em>DI</em> and <em>ASI</em>, including in the context of sensitivity analyses assessing the impact of potential uncertainty in inconsistency.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The <em>DI</em> and the <em>ASI</em> can contribute to quantitatively assess inconsistency, particularly as DTs are gaining recognition in evidence synthesis and health decision-making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"181 ","pages":"Article 111725"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative assessment of inconsistency in meta-analysis using decision thresholds with two new indices\",\"authors\":\"Bernardo Sousa-Pinto ,&nbsp;Ignacio Neumann ,&nbsp;Rafael José Vieira ,&nbsp;Antonio Bognanni ,&nbsp;Manuel Marques-Cruz ,&nbsp;Sara Gil-Mata ,&nbsp;Simone Mordue ,&nbsp;Clareece Nevill ,&nbsp;Gianluca Baio ,&nbsp;Paul Whaley ,&nbsp;Guido Schwarzer ,&nbsp;James Steele ,&nbsp;Gavin Stewart ,&nbsp;Holger J. Schünemann ,&nbsp;Luís Filipe Azevedo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111725\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>In evidence synthesis, inconsistency is typically assessed visually and with the <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> and the Q statistics. However, these measures have important limitations (i) if there are few primary studies of small sample sizes or (ii) if there are multiple studies with precise estimates. In addition, with the increasing use of decision thresholds (DT), for example in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks, inconsistency judgments can be anchored around DTs. In this article, we developed quantitative measures to assess inconsistency based on DTs.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>We developed two measures to quantify inconsistency based on DTs – the decision inconsistency (<em>DI</em>) and the across-studies inconsistency (<em>ASI</em>) indices. The <em>DI</em> and the <em>ASI</em> are based on the distribution of the posterior samples studies’ effect sizes (ES) across interpretation categories defined by DTs. We developed these indices for the Bayesian context, followed by a frequentist extension.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The <em>DI</em> informs on the <em>overall inconsistency of ESs</em> across interpretation categories, while the <em>ASI</em> quantifies how <em>different</em> studies are compared to each other (in relation to interpretation categories) based on absolute effects. A <em>DI</em> ≥ 50% and an ASI ≥ 25% are suggestive of important inconsistency. We provide an R package (metainc) and a web tool (<span><span>https://metainc.med.up.pt/</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>) to support the computation of the <em>DI</em> and <em>ASI</em>, including in the context of sensitivity analyses assessing the impact of potential uncertainty in inconsistency.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The <em>DI</em> and the <em>ASI</em> can contribute to quantitatively assess inconsistency, particularly as DTs are gaining recognition in evidence synthesis and health decision-making.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"181 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111725\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625000587\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625000587","RegionNum":2,"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

目的:在证据合成中,通常用I2和Q统计来评估不一致性。然而,这些措施有重要的局限性(i)如果很少有小样本量的初步研究,或(ii)如果有多个具有精确估计的研究。此外,随着越来越多地使用决策阈值(DT),例如在将证据分级到决策框架中,不一致性判断可以围绕DT进行锚定。在本文中,我们开发了定量的方法来评估基于dt的不一致性。研究设计和设置:我们开发了两种测量方法来量化基于DTs的不一致性-决策不一致性(DI)和跨研究不一致性(ASI)指数。DI和ASI是基于后验样本研究的效应大小在由dt定义的解释类别中的分布。我们为贝叶斯上下文开发了这些指标,然后进行了频率扩展。结果:DI报告了不同解释类别效应大小的总体不一致性,而ASI量化了基于绝对效应的不同研究(相对于解释类别)如何相互比较。DI≥50%和ASI≥25%提示存在重要的原因不明的不一致。我们提供了一个R包(mec)和一个web工具(https://metainc.med.up.pt/)来支持DI和ASI的计算,包括在敏感性分析的背景下评估不一致的潜在不确定性的影响。结论:DI和ASI有助于定量评估不一致性,特别是当DTs在证据合成和卫生决策中得到认可时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantitative assessment of inconsistency in meta-analysis using decision thresholds with two new indices

Objectives

In evidence synthesis, inconsistency is typically assessed visually and with the I2 and the Q statistics. However, these measures have important limitations (i) if there are few primary studies of small sample sizes or (ii) if there are multiple studies with precise estimates. In addition, with the increasing use of decision thresholds (DT), for example in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks, inconsistency judgments can be anchored around DTs. In this article, we developed quantitative measures to assess inconsistency based on DTs.

Study Design and Setting

We developed two measures to quantify inconsistency based on DTs – the decision inconsistency (DI) and the across-studies inconsistency (ASI) indices. The DI and the ASI are based on the distribution of the posterior samples studies’ effect sizes (ES) across interpretation categories defined by DTs. We developed these indices for the Bayesian context, followed by a frequentist extension.

Results

The DI informs on the overall inconsistency of ESs across interpretation categories, while the ASI quantifies how different studies are compared to each other (in relation to interpretation categories) based on absolute effects. A DI ≥ 50% and an ASI ≥ 25% are suggestive of important inconsistency. We provide an R package (metainc) and a web tool (https://metainc.med.up.pt/) to support the computation of the DI and ASI, including in the context of sensitivity analyses assessing the impact of potential uncertainty in inconsistency.

Conclusion

The DI and the ASI can contribute to quantitatively assess inconsistency, particularly as DTs are gaining recognition in evidence synthesis and health decision-making.
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
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
×
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