A case study of pooled-studies publications indicated potential for both valuable information and bias

Kylie J. Thaler, Laura C. Morgan, Megan Van Noord, Daniel E. Jonas, Marian McDonagh, Kimberly Peterson, Anna Glechner, Gerald Gartlehner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Pooled-studies publications (PSPs) present statistical analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials without a systematic literature search or critical appraisal. We explored the characteristics of PSPs and their potential impact on a systematic review (SR). Study Design and Setting: We systematically evaluated PSPs excluded from an SR of second-generation antidepressants. We analyzed their basic characteristics, risk of bias, and the effect of new data on review conclusions. Results: We identified 57 PSPs containing a median of five trials (range, 2-11) and 1,233 patients (range, 117-2,919). Ninety-six percent of PSPs were industry funded, and 49% of PSPs contained unpublished data. The median number of citations for PSPs was 29 (range, 0-549). Only 7% planned pooling a priori, and 19% combined trials with identical protocols. Fifty-nine percent of PSPs eligible for general efficacy provided no new data. For some subgroups and accompanying symptoms (e.g., anxiety, insomnia, melancholia, fatigue, sex, and race), more than 30% of PSPs presented entirely new data or data that could alter the strength of the evidence available in the SR. Conclusion: In this case study, PSPs provided new information on subgroups and secondary outcomes; however, guidance for reviewers and development of a system to assess their susceptibility to bias are required.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1082-1092
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume66
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2013

Fingerprint

Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders
Depressive Disorder
Antidepressive Agents
Fatigue
Publications
Industry
Anxiety
Randomized Controlled Trials

Keywords

  • Antidepressants
  • Bias
  • Depression
  • Pooling
  • Subgroups
  • Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

A case study of pooled-studies publications indicated potential for both valuable information and bias. / Thaler, Kylie J.; Morgan, Laura C.; Van Noord, Megan; Jonas, Daniel E.; McDonagh, Marian; Peterson, Kimberly; Glechner, Anna; Gartlehner, Gerald.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 66, No. 10, 10.2013, p. 1082-1092.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Thaler, KJ, Morgan, LC, Van Noord, M, Jonas, DE, McDonagh, M, Peterson, K, Glechner, A & Gartlehner, G 2013, 'A case study of pooled-studies publications indicated potential for both valuable information and bias', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 1082-1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.002
Thaler, Kylie J. ; Morgan, Laura C. ; Van Noord, Megan ; Jonas, Daniel E. ; McDonagh, Marian ; Peterson, Kimberly ; Glechner, Anna ; Gartlehner, Gerald. / A case study of pooled-studies publications indicated potential for both valuable information and bias. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2013 ; Vol. 66, No. 10. pp. 1082-1092.
@article{e4ef47882da641769edf14837b60d717,
title = "A case study of pooled-studies publications indicated potential for both valuable information and bias",
abstract = "Objectives: Pooled-studies publications (PSPs) present statistical analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials without a systematic literature search or critical appraisal. We explored the characteristics of PSPs and their potential impact on a systematic review (SR). Study Design and Setting: We systematically evaluated PSPs excluded from an SR of second-generation antidepressants. We analyzed their basic characteristics, risk of bias, and the effect of new data on review conclusions. Results: We identified 57 PSPs containing a median of five trials (range, 2-11) and 1,233 patients (range, 117-2,919). Ninety-six percent of PSPs were industry funded, and 49{\%} of PSPs contained unpublished data. The median number of citations for PSPs was 29 (range, 0-549). Only 7{\%} planned pooling a priori, and 19{\%} combined trials with identical protocols. Fifty-nine percent of PSPs eligible for general efficacy provided no new data. For some subgroups and accompanying symptoms (e.g., anxiety, insomnia, melancholia, fatigue, sex, and race), more than 30{\%} of PSPs presented entirely new data or data that could alter the strength of the evidence available in the SR. Conclusion: In this case study, PSPs provided new information on subgroups and secondary outcomes; however, guidance for reviewers and development of a system to assess their susceptibility to bias are required.",
keywords = "Antidepressants, Bias, Depression, Pooling, Subgroups, Systematic review",
author = "Thaler, {Kylie J.} and Morgan, {Laura C.} and {Van Noord}, Megan and Jonas, {Daniel E.} and Marian McDonagh and Kimberly Peterson and Anna Glechner and Gerald Gartlehner",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "66",
pages = "1082--1092",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A case study of pooled-studies publications indicated potential for both valuable information and bias

AU - Thaler, Kylie J.

AU - Morgan, Laura C.

AU - Van Noord, Megan

AU - Jonas, Daniel E.

AU - McDonagh, Marian

AU - Peterson, Kimberly

AU - Glechner, Anna

AU - Gartlehner, Gerald

PY - 2013/10

Y1 - 2013/10

N2 - Objectives: Pooled-studies publications (PSPs) present statistical analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials without a systematic literature search or critical appraisal. We explored the characteristics of PSPs and their potential impact on a systematic review (SR). Study Design and Setting: We systematically evaluated PSPs excluded from an SR of second-generation antidepressants. We analyzed their basic characteristics, risk of bias, and the effect of new data on review conclusions. Results: We identified 57 PSPs containing a median of five trials (range, 2-11) and 1,233 patients (range, 117-2,919). Ninety-six percent of PSPs were industry funded, and 49% of PSPs contained unpublished data. The median number of citations for PSPs was 29 (range, 0-549). Only 7% planned pooling a priori, and 19% combined trials with identical protocols. Fifty-nine percent of PSPs eligible for general efficacy provided no new data. For some subgroups and accompanying symptoms (e.g., anxiety, insomnia, melancholia, fatigue, sex, and race), more than 30% of PSPs presented entirely new data or data that could alter the strength of the evidence available in the SR. Conclusion: In this case study, PSPs provided new information on subgroups and secondary outcomes; however, guidance for reviewers and development of a system to assess their susceptibility to bias are required.

AB - Objectives: Pooled-studies publications (PSPs) present statistical analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials without a systematic literature search or critical appraisal. We explored the characteristics of PSPs and their potential impact on a systematic review (SR). Study Design and Setting: We systematically evaluated PSPs excluded from an SR of second-generation antidepressants. We analyzed their basic characteristics, risk of bias, and the effect of new data on review conclusions. Results: We identified 57 PSPs containing a median of five trials (range, 2-11) and 1,233 patients (range, 117-2,919). Ninety-six percent of PSPs were industry funded, and 49% of PSPs contained unpublished data. The median number of citations for PSPs was 29 (range, 0-549). Only 7% planned pooling a priori, and 19% combined trials with identical protocols. Fifty-nine percent of PSPs eligible for general efficacy provided no new data. For some subgroups and accompanying symptoms (e.g., anxiety, insomnia, melancholia, fatigue, sex, and race), more than 30% of PSPs presented entirely new data or data that could alter the strength of the evidence available in the SR. Conclusion: In this case study, PSPs provided new information on subgroups and secondary outcomes; however, guidance for reviewers and development of a system to assess their susceptibility to bias are required.

KW - Antidepressants

KW - Bias

KW - Depression

KW - Pooling

KW - Subgroups

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883466419&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883466419&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.002

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 23850407

AN - SCOPUS:84883466419

VL - 66

SP - 1082

EP - 1092

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 10

ER -