Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol
- PMID: 26525044
- PMCID: PMC4630908
- DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0134-z
Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol
Erratum in
-
Correction to: Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol for a systematic review.Alzheimers Res Ther. 2018 Feb 16;10(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s13195-018-0351-5. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2018. PMID: 29452606 Free PMC article.
-
Correction to: Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol.Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 19;7(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0711-z. Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 29554959 Free PMC article.
Abstract
Background: Systematic reviews should provide trustworthy guidance to decision-makers, but their credibility is challenged by the selective reporting of trial results and outcomes. Some trials are not published, and even among clinical trials that are published partially (e.g., as conference abstracts), many are never published in full. Although there are many potential sources of published and unpublished data for systematic reviews, there are no established methods for choosing among multiple reports or data sources about the same trial.
Methods: We will conduct systematic reviews of the effectiveness and safety of two interventions following the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines: (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. For the review of gabapentin, we will include adult participants with neuropathic pain who do not require ventilator support. For the review of quetiapine, we will include adult participants with acute bipolar depression (excluding mixed or rapid cycling episodes). We will compare these drugs (used alone or in combination with other interventions) with placebo or with the same intervention alone; direct comparisons with other medications will be excluded. For each review, we will conduct highly sensitive electronic searches, and the results of the searches will be assessed by two independent reviewers. Outcomes, study characteristics, and risk of bias ratings will be extracted from multiple reports by two individuals working independently, stored in a publicly available database (Systematic Review Data Repository) and analyzed using commonly available statistical software. In each review, we will conduct a series of meta-analyses using data from different sources to determine how the results are affected by the inclusion of data from multiple published sources (e.g., journal articles and conference abstracts) as well as unpublished aggregate data (e.g., "clinical study reports") and individual participant data (IPD). We will identify patient-centered outcomes in each report and identify differences in the reporting of these outcomes across sources.
Systematic review registration: CRD42015014037 , CRD42015014038.
Similar articles
-
Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study).Res Synth Methods. 2018 Mar;9(1):2-12. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1277. Epub 2017 Dec 15. Res Synth Methods. 2018. PMID: 29057573 Free PMC article.
-
Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis.J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jun;86:39-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.007. Epub 2017 May 18. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017. PMID: 28529187 Review.
-
Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy.J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Nov;91:95-110. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.07.014. Epub 2017 Aug 24. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017. PMID: 28842290 Review.
-
The Benefits and Challenges of Using Multiple Sources of Information about Clinical Trials [Internet].Washington (DC): Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); 2018 Mar. Washington (DC): Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); 2018 Mar. PMID: 37043591 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Biological rationale and potential clinical use of gabapentin and pregabalin in bipolar disorder, insomnia and anxiety: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 27;7(3):e013433. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013433. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 28348186 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Opportunities for selective reporting of harms in randomized clinical trials: Selection criteria for non-systematic adverse events.Trials. 2019 Sep 5;20(1):553. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3581-3. Trials. 2019. PMID: 31488200 Free PMC article.
-
Methods to identify and prioritize patient-centered outcomes for use in comparative effectiveness research.Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018 Jun 12;4:95. doi: 10.1186/s40814-018-0284-6. eCollection 2018. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018. PMID: 30026961 Free PMC article.
-
Participants' outcomes gone missing within a network of interventions: Bayesian modeling strategies.Stat Med. 2019 Sep 10;38(20):3861-3879. doi: 10.1002/sim.8207. Epub 2019 May 27. Stat Med. 2019. PMID: 31134664 Free PMC article.
-
Caveat emptor: the combined effects of multiplicity and selective reporting.Trials. 2018 Sep 17;19(1):497. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2888-9. Trials. 2018. PMID: 30223876 Free PMC article.
-
Updating insights into rosiglitazone and cardiovascular risk through shared data: individual patient and summary level meta-analyses.BMJ. 2020 Feb 5;368:l7078. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l7078. BMJ. 2020. PMID: 32024657 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007(2):MR000005. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources