Research Synthesis Methods最新文献

Recently, Ades and colleagues discussed the controversies and advancements in network meta-analysis (NMA) over the past two decades, discussing its reliability, assumptions, novel approaches, and provided some useful recommendations for the conduction of NMAs. The present discussion paper builds on the insights by Ades and colleagues, providing a roadmap for NMA applications, advancements in software and tools, and approaches designed to facilitate the assessment and interpretation of NMA findings. It also discusses the impact of NMA across disciplines, particularly for policymakers and guideline developers. Despite 20 years of NMA history, challenges remain in understanding and assessing assumptions, communicating and interpreting findings, and applying common approaches like network meta-regression and NMA involving non-randomized studies in readily available software. NMA has proven particularly valuable in clinical decision-making, which highlights the need for additional training and interdisciplinary collaboration of knowledge users, including patient engagement, to enhance its adoption and address real-world problems.

We respond to some of the methodological issues raised in a recent review of network meta-analysis (NMA). We also provide a health technology developer's perspective and consider the future application of NMA to health technology assessment.

We respond to discussant comments on our paper “Twenty years of network meta-analysis: Continuing controversies and recent developments” (https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1700) and raise some additional points for consideration, including: the way in which methodological guidance is generated; integration of the estimand framework with evidence synthesis; and implications of the European Joint Clinical Assessment. We ask: what properties are required of population adjustment methods to enable transparent and consistent decision-making? We also ask why individual patient data is not routinely made available to re-imbursement authorities and clinical guideline developers.

This discussion contribution provides some subjective early history of network meta-analysis and also proposes a new bipartite graph structure to better represent multi-arm trials.

Accurate data extraction is a key component of evidence synthesis and critical to valid results. The advent of publicly available large language models (LLMs) has generated interest in these tools for evidence synthesis and created uncertainty about the choice of LLM. We compare the performance of two widely available LLMs (Claude 2 and GPT-4) for extracting pre-specified data elements from 10 published articles included in a previously completed systematic review. We use prompts and full study PDFs to compare the outputs from the browser versions of Claude 2 and GPT-4. GPT-4 required use of a third-party plugin to upload and parse PDFs. Accuracy was high for Claude 2 (96.3%). The accuracy of GPT-4 with the plug-in was lower (68.8%); however, most of the errors were due to the plug-in. Both LLMs correctly recognized when prespecified data elements were missing from the source PDF and generated correct information for data elements that were not reported explicitly in the articles. A secondary analysis demonstrated that, when provided selected text from the PDFs, Claude 2 and GPT-4 accurately extracted 98.7% and 100% of the data elements, respectively. Limitations include the narrow scope of the study PDFs used, that prompt development was completed using only Claude 2, and that we cannot guarantee the open-source articles were not used to train the LLMs. This study highlights the potential for LLMs to revolutionize data extraction but underscores the importance of accurate PDF parsing. For now, it remains essential for a human investigator to validate LLM extractions.

Citation indices providing information on backward citation (BWC) and forward citation (FWC) links are essential for literature discovery, bibliographic analysis, and knowledge synthesis, especially when language barriers impede document identification. However, the suitability of citation indices varies. While some have been analyzed, the majority, whether new or established, lack comprehensive evaluation. Therefore, this study evaluates the citation coverage of the citation indices of 59 databases, encompassing the widely used Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science alongside many others never previously analyzed, such as the emerging Lens, Scite, Dimensions, and OpenAlex or the subject-specific PubMed and JSTOR. Through a comprehensive analysis using 259 journal articles from across disciplines, this research aims to guide scholars in selecting indices with broader document coverage and more accurate and comprehensive backward and forward citation links. Key findings highlight Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Semantic Scholar, and Lens as leading options for FWC searching, with Lens providing superior download capabilities. For BWC searching, the Web of Science Core Collection can be recommended over Scopus for accuracy. BWC information from publisher databases such as IEEE Xplore or ScienceDirect was generally found to be the most accurate, yet only available for a limited number of articles. The findings will help scholars conducting systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and bibliometric analyses to select the most suitable databases for citation searching.

Meta-analyses examining dichotomous outcomes often include single-zero studies, where no events occur in intervention or control groups. These pose challenges, and several methods have been proposed to address them. A fixed continuity correction method has been shown to bias estimates, but it is frequently used because sometimes software (e.g., RevMan software in Cochrane reviews) uses it as a default. We aimed to empirically compare results using the continuity correction with those using alternative models that do not require correction. To this aim, we reanalyzed the original data from 885 meta-analyses in Cochrane reviews using the following methods: (i) Mantel–Haenszel model with a fixed continuity correction, (ii) random effects inverse variance model with a fixed continuity correction, (iii) Peto method (the three models available in RevMan), (iv) random effects inverse variance model with the treatment arm continuity correction, (v) Mantel–Haenszel model without correction, (vi) logistic regression, and (vii) a Bayesian random effects model with binominal likelihood. For each meta-analysis we calculated ratios of odds ratios between all methods, to assess how the choice of method may impact results. Ratios of odds ratios <0.8 or <1.25 were seen in ~30% of the existing meta-analyses when comparing results between Mantel–Haenszel model with a fixed continuity correction and either Mantel–Haenszel model without correction or logistic regression. We concluded that injudicious use of the fixed continuity correction in existing Cochrane reviews may have substantially influenced effect estimates in some cases. Future updates of RevMan should incorporate less biased statistical methods.

When studies use different scales to measure continuous outcomes, standardised mean differences (SMD) are required to meta-analyse the data. However, outcomes are often reported as endpoint or change from baseline scores. Combining corresponding SMDs can be problematic and available guidance advises against this practice. We aimed to examine the impact of combining the two types of SMD in meta-analyses of depression severity. We used individual participant data on pharmacological interventions (89 studies, 27,409 participants) and internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT; 61 studies, 13,687 participants) for depression to compare endpoint and change from baseline SMDs at the study level. Next, we performed pairwise (PWMA) and network meta-analyses (NMA) using endpoint SMDs, change from baseline SMDs, or a mixture of the two. Study-specific SMDs calculated from endpoint and change from baseline data were largely similar, although for iCBT interventions 25% of the studies at 3 months were associated with important differences between study-specific SMDs (median 0.01, IQR −0.10, 0.13) especially in smaller trials with baseline imbalances. However, when pooled, the differences between endpoint and change SMDs were negligible. Pooling only the more favourable of the two SMDs did not materially affect meta-analyses, resulting in differences of pooled SMDs up to 0.05 and 0.13 in the pharmacological and iCBT datasets, respectively. Our findings have implications for meta-analyses in depression, where we showed that the choice between endpoint and change scores for estimating SMDs had immaterial impact on summary meta-analytic estimates. Future studies should replicate and extend our analyses to fields other than depression.