Between-trial heterogeneity in meta-analyses may be partially explained by reported design characteristics

Publication date: Available online 5 December 2017
Source:Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Author(s): K.M. Rhodes, R.M. Turner, J. Savović, H.E. Jones, D. Mawdsley, J.P.T. Higgins
ObjectiveWe investigated the associations between risk of bias judgments from Cochrane reviews for sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding and between-trial heterogeneity.Study Design and SettingBayesian hierarchical models were fitted to binary data from 117 meta-analyses, to estimate the ratio λ by which heterogeneity changes for trials at high/unclear risk of bias, compared to trials at low risk of bias. We estimated the proportion of between-trial heterogeneity in each meta-analysis that could be explained by the bias associated with specific design characteristics.ResultsUnivariable analyses showed that heterogeneity variances were, on average, increased among trials at high/unclear risk of bias for sequence generation (λˆ 1.14, 95% interval: 0.57 to 2.30) and blinding (λˆ 1.74, 95% interval: 0.85 to 3.47). Trials at high/unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment were on average less heterogeneous (λˆ 0.75, 95% interval: 0.35 to 1.61). Multivariable analyses showed that a median of 37% (95% interval: 0% to 71%) heterogeneity variance could be explained by trials at high/unclear risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment and/or blinding. All 95% intervals for changes in heterogeneity were wide and included the null of no difference.ConclusionOur interpretation of the results is limited by imprecise estimates. There is some indication that between-trial heterogeneity could be partially explained by reported design characteristics, and hence adjustment for bias could potentially improve accuracy of meta-analysis results.



from ! ORL Sfakianakis via paythelady.61 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2jjJtHL
via IFTTT