...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Research Methodology >Consensus-based recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews
【24h】

Consensus-based recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews

机译:基于共识的建议,用于系统评价临床异质性

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Critics of systematic reviews have argued that these studies often fail to inform clinical decision making because their results are far too general, that the data are sparse, such that findings cannot be applied to individual patients or for other decision making. While there is some consensus on methods for investigating statistical and methodological heterogeneity, little attention has been paid to clinical aspects of heterogeneity. Clinical heterogeneity, true effect heterogeneity, can be defined as variability among studies in the participants, the types or timing of outcome measurements, and the intervention characteristics. The objective of this project was to develop recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews. Methods We used a modified Delphi technique with three phases: (1) pre-meeting item generation; (2) face-to-face consensus meeting in the form of a modified Delphi process; and (3) post-meeting feedback. We identified and invited potential participants with expertise in systematic review methodology, systematic review reporting, or statistical aspects of meta-analyses, or those who published papers on clinical heterogeneity. Results Between April and June of 2011, we conducted phone calls with participants. In June 2011 we held the face-to-face focus group meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan. First, we agreed upon a definition of clinical heterogeneity: Variations in the treatment effect that are due to differences in clinically related characteristics. Next, we discussed and generated recommendations in the following 12 categories related to investigating clinical heterogeneity: the systematic review team, planning investigations, rationale for choice of variables, types of clinical variables, the role of statistical heterogeneity, the use of plotting and visual aids, dealing with outlier studies, the number of investigations or variables, the role of the best evidence synthesis, types of statistical methods, the interpretation of findings, and reporting. Conclusions Clinical heterogeneity is common in systematic reviews. Our recommendations can help guide systematic reviewers in conducting valid and reliable investigations of clinical heterogeneity. Findings of these investigations may allow for increased applicability of findings of systematic reviews to the management of individual patients.
机译:背景技术系统评价的批评者认为,这些研究通常无法告知临床决策,因为其结果过于笼统,数据稀疏,因此研究结果无法应用于个别患者或其他决策。尽管在调查统计和方法异质性的方法上已达成共识,但很少关注异质性的临床方面。临床异质性,真实效果异质性可以定义为参与者研究之间的差异,结果测量的类型或时机以及干预特征。该项目的目的是在系统评价中提出研究临床异质性的建议。方法我们使用改进的Delphi技术,分为三个阶段:(1)会议前项目生成; (2)以改进的Delphi流程的形式进行面对面的共识会议; (3)会议后反馈。我们确定并邀请了具有系统评价方法,系统评价报告或荟萃分析统计方面专业知识的潜在参与者,或发表了有关临床异质性论文的人。结果2011年4月至6月之间,我们与参与者进行了电话通话。 2011年6月,我们在密歇根州安阿伯市举行了面对面的焦点小组会议。首先,我们同意临床异质性的定义:由于临床相关特征的差异,导致治疗效果发生变化。接下来,我们在以下12类中讨论并提出了与临床异质性调查相关的建议:系统评价小组,计划调查,变量选择依据,临床变量类型,统计异质性的作用,绘图和视觉辅助工具的使用,异常值研究,调查或变量的数量,最佳证据综合的作用,统计方法的类型,结果的解释和报告。结论临床异质性在系统评价中很常见。我们的建议可以帮助指导系统的审阅者对临床异质性进行有效和可靠的研究。这些调查的发现可能会增加系统评价的发现在个体患者管理中的适用性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号