{"title":"Cochrane综述中早期研究对后期研究的预测性能","authors":"Fahad M. Al Amer, 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":"{\"title\":\"Prediction Performance of Earlier Studies for Later Studies in Cochrane Reviews\",\"authors\":\"Fahad M. Al Amer, 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}","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}
Prediction Performance of Earlier Studies for Later Studies in Cochrane Reviews
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
