Trial-level characteristics associate with treatment effect estimates: a systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies
Abstract Background To summarize the up-to-date empirical evidence on trial-level characteristics of randomized controlled trials associated with treatment effect estimates. Methods A systematic review searched three databases up to August 2020. Meta-epidemiological (ME) studies of randomized controlled trials on intervention effect were eligible. We assessed the methodological quality of ME studies using a self-developed criterion. Associations between treatment effect estimates and trial-level characteristics were presented using forest plots. Results Eighty ME studies were included, with 25/80 (31%) being published after 2015. Less than one-third ME studies critically appraised the included studies (26/80, 33%), published a protocol (23/80, 29%), and provided a list of excluded studies with justifications (12/80, 15%). Trials with high or unclear (versus low) risk of bias on sequence generation (3/14 for binary outcome and 1/6 for continuous outcome), allocation concealment (11/18 and 1/6), double blinding (5/15 and 2/4) and smaller sample size (4/5 and 2/2) significantly associated with larger treatment effect estimates. Associations between high or unclear risk of bias on allocation concealment (5/6 for binary outcome and 1/3 for continuous outcome), double blinding (4/5 and 1/3) and larger treatment effect estimates were more frequently observed for subjective outcomes. The associations between treatment effect estimates and non-blinding of outcome assessors were removed in trials using multiple observers to reach consensus for both binary and continuous outcomes. Some trial characteristics in the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB2) tool have not been covered by the included ME studies, including using validated method for outcome measures and selection of the reported results from multiple outcome measures or multiple analysis based on results (e.g., significance of the results). Conclusions Consistently significant associations between larger treatment effect estimates and high or unclear risk of bias on sequence generation, allocation concealment, double blinding and smaller sample size were found. The impact of allocation concealment and double blinding were more consistent for subjective outcomes. The methodological and reporting quality of included ME studies were dissatisfactory. Future ME studies should follow the corresponding reporting guideline. Specific guidelines for conducting and critically appraising ME studies are needed..
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:22 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
BMC Medical Research Methodology - 22(2022), 1, Seite 17 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Huan Wang [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
doi.org [kostenfrei] |
|---|
| Themen: |
Medicine (General) |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1186/s12874-022-01650-5 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
DOAJ04403797X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ04403797X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230308075533.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230227s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12874-022-01650-5 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ04403797X | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ2d865f1589c2454aa6034dadbe423e62 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a R5-920 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Huan Wang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Trial-level characteristics associate with treatment effect estimates: a systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Background To summarize the up-to-date empirical evidence on trial-level characteristics of randomized controlled trials associated with treatment effect estimates. Methods A systematic review searched three databases up to August 2020. Meta-epidemiological (ME) studies of randomized controlled trials on intervention effect were eligible. We assessed the methodological quality of ME studies using a self-developed criterion. Associations between treatment effect estimates and trial-level characteristics were presented using forest plots. Results Eighty ME studies were included, with 25/80 (31%) being published after 2015. Less than one-third ME studies critically appraised the included studies (26/80, 33%), published a protocol (23/80, 29%), and provided a list of excluded studies with justifications (12/80, 15%). Trials with high or unclear (versus low) risk of bias on sequence generation (3/14 for binary outcome and 1/6 for continuous outcome), allocation concealment (11/18 and 1/6), double blinding (5/15 and 2/4) and smaller sample size (4/5 and 2/2) significantly associated with larger treatment effect estimates. Associations between high or unclear risk of bias on allocation concealment (5/6 for binary outcome and 1/3 for continuous outcome), double blinding (4/5 and 1/3) and larger treatment effect estimates were more frequently observed for subjective outcomes. The associations between treatment effect estimates and non-blinding of outcome assessors were removed in trials using multiple observers to reach consensus for both binary and continuous outcomes. Some trial characteristics in the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB2) tool have not been covered by the included ME studies, including using validated method for outcome measures and selection of the reported results from multiple outcome measures or multiple analysis based on results (e.g., significance of the results). Conclusions Consistently significant associations between larger treatment effect estimates and high or unclear risk of bias on sequence generation, allocation concealment, double blinding and smaller sample size were found. The impact of allocation concealment and double blinding were more consistent for subjective outcomes. The methodological and reporting quality of included ME studies were dissatisfactory. Future ME studies should follow the corresponding reporting guideline. Specific guidelines for conducting and critically appraising ME studies are needed. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Meta-epidemiological study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Randomized controlled trial | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Treatment effect estimates | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Trial-level characteristic | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Medicine (General) | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Jinlu Song |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Yali Lin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Wenjie Dai |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Yinyan Gao |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Lang Qin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Yancong Chen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Wilson Tam |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Irene XY Wu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Vincent CH Chung |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t BMC Medical Research Methodology |d BMC, 2003 |g 22(2022), 1, Seite 17 |w (DE-627)DOAJ00007263X |x 14712288 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:22 |g year:2022 |g number:1 |g pages:17 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01650-5 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/2d865f1589c2454aa6034dadbe423e62 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01650-5 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2288 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 22 |j 2022 |e 1 |h 17 | ||