Lecture 14- Review of the evidence Flashcards
Epidemiological study designs
Evidence-based healthcare
- Healthcare service and intervention should be based on best evidence
- Need rigorous research
- Primary e.g. RCT
- Literature review of studies:
-
Narrative reviews
- Implicit assumptions
- Opaque
- Methodology
- Not reproducible biased, subjective
-
Systematic review
- Explicit assumptions
- Transparent methodology (e.g. search strategy)
- Reproducible
- Unbiased and objective
-
Narrative reviews
-
Decision analyses
- Harm and benefits
- Cost-effectiveness
- Need rigorous research
systematic rveiw
an overview of primary studies that used explicit and reproducible methods
meta-analysis
a quantitative synthesis of the result of two or more primary studies that addressed the same hypothesis in the same way
why are systematic such a credible source of evidence
- Clear focussed question
- Explicit statements about:
- types of study
- types of participants
- types of interventions
- types of outcome measures
- Systematic literature search
- Methodology should be published
- Selection of material
- Appraisal
- Synthesis (possibly including a metanalysis
purpose of a meta-analysis
To facilitate the synthesis of a large number of study results
- Systematically collate study results
- Reduce problems of interpretation due to variation in sampling
- To quantify effect sizes and their uncertainty as a pooled estimate
quality criteria for meta-analysis
Should have a formal protocol (comprehensive search strategy and systematic method of reviewing each study for inclusion
Example – binary outcomes (e.g. dead or alive after certain time period)
Effect size calculated using Odds ratio
Forest plot study numbers 1-7 matches studies from previous example
- Horizontal line= 95% confidence intervals
- If it crosses 1- no significant difference in outcomes (5%)
- Square= effect
- Diamond= metanalyses estimates
Interpretation of forest plot
- Individual odds ratios [squares] with their 95% CI [lines] are displayed for each study
- Size of square is in proportion to the weight given to the study
- The [diamond] is the pooled estimate with the centre indicating the pooled odds ratio [dotted line] and the width representing the pooled 95% CI
- The [solid line] is the null hypothesis OR
- 1= no difference
- 6 out of the 7 RCTs had an OR > 1.00 indicating greater odds for survival amongst patients taking aspirin after MI
- Only 1 RCT (the largest) had a statistically significant result, but its OR was less than the other RCTs with an OR > 1.00
- Pooled estimate OR = 1.11 (95% CI: 1.04 to 1.19) leads to the conclusion that aspirin increases the chance of surviving after a MI (p<0.05)
Meta-analysis problems
(1) Heterogeneity between studies : modelling for variation
Two approaches to calculating the pooled estimate odds ratio and its 95% Cl:
Heterogeneity
in meta-analysis refers to the variation in study outcomes between studies
fixed effect model
Assumes there is only one true effect that every study is trying to estimate- variation in effects is due random variation
- Studies are weighted for uncertainty
- Smaller confidence interval studies will have greater weight