{"title":"To adjust or not to adjust in living systematic reviews? It’s all about the context","authors":"Adriani Nikolakopoulou , Guido Schwarzer , Waldemar Siemens","doi":"10.1016/j.zefq.2024.04.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>With each update of meta-analyses from living systematic reviews, treatment effects and their confidence intervals are recalculated. This often raises the question whether or not multiplicity is an issue and whether a method to adjust for multiplicity is needed. It seems that answering these questions is not that straightforward. We approach this matter by considering the context of systematic reviews and pointing out existing methods for handling multiplicity in meta-analysis. We conclude that multiplicity is not a relevant issue in living systematic reviews when they are planned with the aim to provide up-to-date evidence, without any direct control on the decision over future research. Multiplicity might be an issue, though, in living systematic reviews designed under a protocol involving a “stopping decision”, which can be the case in living guideline development or in reimbursement decisions. Several appropriate methods exist for handling multiplicity in meta-analysis. Existing methods, however, are also associated with several technical and conceptual limitations, and could be improved in future methodological projects. To better decide whether an adjustment for multiplicity is necessary at all, authors and users of living systematic reviews should be aware of the context of the work and question whether there is a dependency between the effect estimates of the living systematic review and its stopping/updating or an influence on future research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921724000801/pdfft?md5=066c250dc7a12e67335b1940b9028049&pid=1-s2.0-S1865921724000801-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921724000801","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
With each update of meta-analyses from living systematic reviews, treatment effects and their confidence intervals are recalculated. This often raises the question whether or not multiplicity is an issue and whether a method to adjust for multiplicity is needed. It seems that answering these questions is not that straightforward. We approach this matter by considering the context of systematic reviews and pointing out existing methods for handling multiplicity in meta-analysis. We conclude that multiplicity is not a relevant issue in living systematic reviews when they are planned with the aim to provide up-to-date evidence, without any direct control on the decision over future research. Multiplicity might be an issue, though, in living systematic reviews designed under a protocol involving a “stopping decision”, which can be the case in living guideline development or in reimbursement decisions. Several appropriate methods exist for handling multiplicity in meta-analysis. Existing methods, however, are also associated with several technical and conceptual limitations, and could be improved in future methodological projects. To better decide whether an adjustment for multiplicity is necessary at all, authors and users of living systematic reviews should be aware of the context of the work and question whether there is a dependency between the effect estimates of the living systematic review and its stopping/updating or an influence on future research.
期刊介绍：
Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance.
Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
