Overlapping meta-analyses of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents: bringing clarity or confusion?

Capodanno, Davide

doi:10.21037/jtd.2016.05.14

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is often described in the literature as redundancy and has already been observed in many fields of medical research. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Although investigating the same outcomes and including the same studies, these meta-analyses may differ in terms of the population of interest or the statistical methodology used, and these differences may influence their results. This phenomenon may be regarded as a 'vibration of effects' (VoE) and describes the extent to which the results of analyses could change according to the characteristics of the population included or the methodological choices made.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A framework to characterise the reproducibility of meta‐analysis results with its application to direct oral anticoagulants in the acute treatment of venous thromboembolism

Chapelle,

Le Teuff,

Zufferey

et al. 2023

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of meta‐analyses of aggregate data has dramatically increased due to the facility of obtaining data from publications and the development of free, easy‐to‐use, and specialised statistical software. Even when meta‐analyses include the same studies, their results may vary owing to different methodological choices. Assessment of the replication of meta‐analysis provides an example of the variation of effect ‘naturally’ observed between multiple research projects. Reproducibility of results has mostly been reported using graphical descriptive representations. A quantitative analysis of such results would enable (i) breakdown of the total observed variability with quantification of the variability generated by the replication process and (ii) identification of which variables account for this variability, such as methodological quality or the statistical analysis procedures used. These variables might explain systematic mean differences between results and dispersion of the results. To quantitatively characterise the reproducibility of meta‐analysis results, a bivariate linear mixed‐effects model was developed to simulate both mean results and their corresponding uncertainty. Results were assigned to several replication groups, those assessing the same studies, outcomes, treatment indication and comparisons classified in the same replication group. A nested random effect structure was used to break down the total variability within each replication group and between these groups to enable calculation of an intragroup correlation coefficient and quantification of reproducibility. Determinants of variability were investigated by modelling both mean and variance parameters using covariates. The proposed model was applied to the example of meta‐analyses evaluating direct oral anticoagulants in the acute treatment of venous thromboembolism.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This phenomenon has resulted in the replication of meta‐analyses, with several analyses having the same objectives and including the same studies. It is often described in the literature as redundancy and has already been observed in many fields of medical research 3–16 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%