Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study) - PubMed (original) (raw)
Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)
Evan Mayo-Wilson et al. Res Synth Methods. 2018 Mar.
Abstract
Data for individual trials included in systematic reviews may be available in multiple sources. For example, a single trial might be reported in 2 journal articles and 3 conference abstracts. Because of differences across sources, source selection can influence the results of systematic reviews. We used our experience in the Multiple Data Sources in Systematic Reviews (MUDS) study, and evidence from previous studies, to develop practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews. We recommend the following: (1) Specify which sources you will use. Before beginning a systematic review, consider which sources are likely to contain the most useful data. Try to identify all relevant reports and to extract information from the most reliable sources. (2) Link individual trials with multiple sources. Write to authors to determine which sources are likely related to the same trials. Use a modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flowchart to document both the selection of trials and the selection of sources. (3) Follow a prespecified protocol for extracting trial characteristics from multiple sources. Identify differences among sources, and contact study authors to resolve differences if possible. (4) Prespecify outcomes and results to examine in the review and meta-analysis. In your protocol, describe how you will handle multiple outcomes within each domain of interest. Look for outcomes using all eligible sources. (5) Identify which data sources were included in the review. Consider whether the results might have been influenced by data sources used. (6) To reduce bias, and to reduce research waste, share the data used in your review.
Keywords: meta-analysis; multiple data sources; reporting bias; risk of bias assessment; selective outcome reporting.
© 2017 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Figures
Figure 1
Evidence‐based recommendations to address the challenges of using multiple sources in systematic reviews [Colour figure can be viewed at
]
Figure 2
Modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) flowchart to describe multiple sources [Colour figure can be viewed at
]
Similar articles
- Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol.
Mayo-Wilson E, Hutfless S, Li T, Gresham G, Fusco N, Ehmsen J, Heyward J, Vedula S, Lock D, Haythornthwaite J, Payne JL, Cowley T, Tolbert E, Rosman L, Twose C, Stuart EA, Hong H, Doshi P, Suarez-Cuervo C, Singh S, Dickersin K. Mayo-Wilson E, et al. Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 2;4:143. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0134-z. Syst Rev. 2015. PMID: 26525044 Free PMC article. - Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis.
Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin K; MUDS investigators. Mayo-Wilson E, et al. 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.
Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Bertizzolo L, Canner JK, Cowley T, Doshi P, Ehmsen J, Gresham G, Guo N, Haythornthwaite JA, Heyward J, Hong H, Pham D, Payne JL, Rosman L, Stuart EA, Suarez-Cuervo C, Tolbert E, Twose C, Vedula S, Dickersin K. Mayo-Wilson E, et al. 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].
Dickersin K, Mayo-Wilson E, Li T. Dickersin K, et al. 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. - Opportunities for selective reporting of harms in randomized clinical trials: Selection criteria for non-systematic adverse events.
Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Hong H, Li T, Canner JK, Dickersin K. Mayo-Wilson E, et al. Trials. 2019 Sep 5;20(1):553. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3581-3. Trials. 2019. PMID: 31488200 Free PMC article.
Cited by
- Nailing precision: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing piriformis and trochanteric entry points for femoral antegrade nailing.
Acevedo D, Suarez A, Checkley T, Fakhoury I, Reyes M, Constantinescu D, Hernandez GM. Acevedo D, et al. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024 Jun;144(6):2527-2538. doi: 10.1007/s00402-024-05359-6. Epub 2024 May 14. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024. PMID: 38744693 - Teachers and managers experiences of virtual learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study.
Faghir Ganji M, Jafari Malvajerd A, Moradi A, Amanollahi A, Ansari-Moghaddam A, Basir Ghafouri H. Faghir Ganji M, et al. Heliyon. 2024 Jan 5;10(2):e24118. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24118. eCollection 2024 Jan 30. Heliyon. 2024. PMID: 38293531 Free PMC article. - Prediction models using artificial intelligence and longitudinal data from electronic health records: a systematic methodological review.
Carrasco-Ribelles LA, Llanes-Jurado J, Gallego-Moll C, Cabrera-Bean M, Monteagudo-Zaragoza M, Violán C, Zabaleta-Del-Olmo E. Carrasco-Ribelles LA, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023 Nov 17;30(12):2072-2082. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocad168. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023. PMID: 37659105 Free PMC article. - Conducting separate reviews of benefits and harms could improve systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Mayo-Wilson E, Qureshi R, Li T. Mayo-Wilson E, et al. Syst Rev. 2023 Apr 15;12(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02234-0. Syst Rev. 2023. PMID: 37061724 Free PMC article. - Recruitment, attrition and intervention completion in clinical trials of psychosocial interventions involving people with early and emerging psychosis: a systematic review protocol.
Nic Giolla Easpaig B, Zhai J, Gray R, Brown E, Bressington D. Nic Giolla Easpaig B, et al. BMJ Open. 2022 Sep 7;12(9):e060863. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-060863. BMJ Open. 2022. PMID: 36691180 Free PMC article.
References
- Mayo‐Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, et al. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:39‐50. - PubMed
- Mayo‐Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, et al. Cherry‐picking by trialists and meta‐analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy. J Clin Epidemiol. In press; - PubMed
- Mullan RJ, Flynn DN, Carlberg B, et al. Systematic reviewers commonly contact study authors but do so with limited rigor. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(2):138‐142. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources