Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T11:54:47.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of methodologic quality on the conclusion of a landmark meta-analysis on thrombolytic therapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2009

Suhail A. R. Doi
Suhail A. R. Doi*
Affiliation:
Clinical Lecturer, Department of Medicine, Kuwait University, Consultant, Department of Medicine, Mubarak Al-Kabeer Teaching Hospital, Safat, Kuwait, 13110 (sardoi@gmx.net)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Verhagen et al. (5) suggest, in a study done in 2002, that methodologic quality of individual trials do not influence the conclusions of a landmark meta-analysis on thrombolytic therapy. This meta-analysis was studied because it was believed that it represents the true effect because its conclusions remain valid 15 years after publication. They incorporated the results of quality assessment in five different ways in the calculation of the pooled odd ratios (ORs): (i) component analysis, (ii) visual plot, (iii) quality score as a threshold score, (iv) quality score as a weighting factor, and (v) cumulative pooling. They did not find much discrepancy using either of these methods of quality assessment.

Type
Commentaries, Views, and Developments in Hta
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 107 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Bax, L, Yu, LM, Ikeda, N, Tsuruta, H, Moons, KG. Development and validation of MIX: Comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:50.Google Scholar
2. Doi, SA, Thalib L. A quality-effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology. 2008;19:94–100.Google Scholar
3. Greenland, S, O'Rourke, K. On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics. 2001;2:463–471.Google Scholar
4. Tritchler, D. Modelling study quality in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1999;18:2135–2145.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Verhagen, AP, de Vet, HC, Vermeer, F et al. The influence of methodologic quality on the conclusion of a landmark meta-analysis on thrombolytic therapy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:11–23.Google ScholarPubMed