Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure

/pdf/bias-in-meta-analysis-detected-by-a-simple-graphical-test-5erh428s5c.pdf

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

/pdf/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-1xbdy6uvru.pdf

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

This paper focuses on scoping studies, an approach to reviewing the literature which to date has received little attention in the research methods literature. We distinguish between different types of scoping studies and indicate where these stand in relation to full systematic reviews. We outline a framework for conducting a scoping study based on our recent experiences of reviewing the literature on services for carers for people with mental health problems. Where appropriate, our approach to scoping the field is contrasted with the procedures followed in systematic reviews. We emphasize how including a consultation exercise in this sort of study may enhance the results, making them more useful to policy makers, practitioners and service users. Finally, we consider the advantages and limitations of the approach and suggest that a wider debate is called for about the role of the scoping study in relation to other types of literature reviews.

/pdf/scoping-studies-towards-a-methodological-framework-478hqzmq9l.pdf

Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

/pdf/the-strengthening-the-reporting-of-observational-studies-in-1a60tcw2sx.pdf

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [STROBE] statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Importance Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination. Objective To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. Process A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). Key Findings From Evidence Synthesis Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. Recommendations Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. Conclusions and Relevance These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/2492881/jsc160002.pdf

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of creating a valid and reliable checklist with the following features: appropriate for assessing both randomised and non-randomised studies; provision of both an overall score for study quality and a profile of scores not only for the quality of reporting, internal validity (bias and confounding) and power, but also for external validity. DESIGN: A pilot version was first developed, based on epidemiological principles, reviews, and existing checklists for randomised studies. Face and content validity were assessed by three experienced reviewers and reliability was determined using two raters assessing 10 randomised and 10 non-randomised studies. Using different raters, the checklist was revised and tested for internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson 20), test-retest and inter-rater reliability (Spearman correlation coefficient and sign rank test; kappa statistics), criterion validity, and respondent burden. MAIN RESULTS: The performance of the checklist improved considerably after revision of a pilot version. The Quality Index had high internal consistency (KR-20: 0.89) as did the subscales apart from external validity (KR-20: 0.54). Test-retest (r 0.88) and inter-rater (r 0.75) reliability of the Quality Index were good. Reliability of the subscales varied from good (bias) to poor (external validity). The Quality Index correlated highly with an existing, established instrument for assessing randomised studies (r 0.90). There was little difference between its performance with non-randomised and with randomised studies. Raters took about 20 minutes to assess each paper (range 10 to 45 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that it is feasible to develop a checklist that can be used to assess the methodological quality not only of randomised controlled trials but also non-randomised studies. It has also shown that it is possible to produce a checklist that provides a profile of the paper, alerting reviewers to its particular methodological strengths and weaknesses. Further work is required to improve the checklist and the training of raters in the assessment of external validity.

https://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/52/6/377.full.pdf

The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.

Record Status This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database. Citation Murphy M K, Black N A, Lamping D L, McKee C M, Sanderson C F B, Askham J, Marteau T. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development: a review. Health Technology Assessment 1998; 2(3): 1-88 Authors' objectives To identify the factors that affect the decisions that emerge from consensus development methods. To assess the implications of the findings for the development of clinical guidelines. To recommend further methodological research for improving the use of consensus development methods as a basis for guideline production.

Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.

The view is widely held that experimental methods (randomised controlled trials) are the “gold standard” for evaluation and that observational methods (cohort and case control studies) have little or no value. This ignores the limitations of randomised trials, which may prove unnecessary, inappropriate, impossible, or inadequate. Many of the problems of conducting randomised trials could often, in theory, be overcome, but the practical implications for researchers and funding bodies mean that this is often not possible. The false conflict between those who advocate randomised trials in all situations and those who believe observational data provide sufficient evidence needs to be replaced with mutual recognition of the complementary roles of the two approaches. Researchers should be united in their quest for scientific rigour in evaluation, regardless of the method used.

Despite the essential role of observational methods in shedding light on the effectiveness of many aspects of health care, some scientists believe such methods have little or even nothing to contribute. In his summing up at a major conference held in 1993, the eminent medical epidemiologist Richard Doll concluded that observational methods “provide no useful means of assessing the value of a therapy.”1 The widely held view that experimental methods (randomised controlled trials) are the “gold standard” for evaluation has led to the denigration of non-experimental methods, to the extent that research funding bodies and journal editors automatically reject them. I suggest that such attitudes limit our potential to evaluate health care and hence to improve the scientific basis of how to treat individuals and how to organise services.

My main contention is that those who are opposed to the use of observational methods have assumed that they represent an alternative to experimentation rather than a set of complementary approaches. This in turn stems from a misguided notion that everything …

/pdf/why-we-need-observational-studies-to-evaluate-the-bllmo2bfek.pdf

Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care

Routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) has the potential to help transform healthcare, says Nick Black . Not only can PROMs help patients and clinicians make better decisions, but they can also enable comparisons of providers’ performances to stimulate improvements in services

/pdf/patient-reported-outcome-measures-could-help-transform-1bmhbh8jgf.pdf

Nick Black

Papers

The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.

Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.

Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care

Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare.

Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development: a review