Investigating causes of heterogeneity in systematic reviews

被引:145
|
作者
Glasziou, PP
Sanders, SL
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Ctr Evidence Based Hlth Ctr, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[2] Univ Queensland, Ctr Gen Practice, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
关键词
heterogeneity; systematic review; meta analysis; effect modification; interaction;
D O I
10.1002/sim.1183
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
What causes heterogeneity in systematic reviews of controlled trials? First, it may be an artefact of the summary measures used, of study design features such as duration of follow-up or the reliability of outcome measures. Second, it may be due to real variation in the treatment effect and hence provides the opportunity to identify factors that may modify the impact of treatment. These factors may include features of the population such as: severity of illness, age and gender; intervention factors such as dose, timing or duration of treatment; and comparator factors such as the control group treatment or the co-interventions in both groups. The ideal way to study causes of true variation is within rather than between studies. In most situations however, we will have to make do with a study level investigation and hence need to be careful about adjusting for potential confounding by artefactual factors such as study design features. Such investigation of artefactual and true causes of heterogeneity form essential steps in moving from a combined effect estimate to application to particular populations and individuals. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:1503 / 1511
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] From standard systematic reviews to living systematic reviews
    Breuer, Claudia
    Meerpohl, Joerg J.
    Siemens, Waldemar
    [J]. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVIDENZ FORTBILDUNG UND QUALITAET IM GESUNDHEITSWESEN, 2023, 176 : 76 - 81
  • [42] Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews
    Whitlock, Evelyn P.
    Lin, Jennifer S.
    Chou, Roger
    Shekelle, Paul
    Robinson, Karen A.
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2008, 148 (10) : 776 - U103
  • [43] SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS - IDENTIFYING RELEVANT STUDIES FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
    DICKERSIN, K
    SCHERER, R
    LEFEBVRE, C
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1994, 309 (6964): : 1286 - 1291
  • [44] SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS - RATIONALE FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS .1.
    MULROW, CD
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1994, 309 (6954): : 597 - 599
  • [45] Narrative Reviews, Systematic Reviews, and Scoping Reviews
    Tulandi, Togas
    Suarthana, Eva
    [J]. JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY CANADA, 2021, 43 (12) : 1355 - 1356
  • [46] CLINICAL HETEROGENEITY IN SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS: SYNTHESIS OF GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND THE LITERATURE
    Gartlehner, Gerald
    West, Suzanne L.
    Mansfield, Alyssa J.
    Poole, Charles
    Tant, Elizabeth
    Lux, Linda J.
    Lohr, Kathleen N.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2012, 28 (01) : 36 - 43
  • [47] Systematic reviews
    Gubitz, G
    Thomas, B
    [J]. NEUROLOGY, 1998, 51 (06) : 1778 - 1778
  • [48] Systematic Reviews
    Milner, Kerry A.
    [J]. ONCOLOGY NURSING FORUM, 2015, 42 (01) : 89 - 93
  • [49] Systematic reviews
    Franklin, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE, 1996, 89 (09) : 538 - 538
  • [50] Systematic reviews
    Stott, DJ
    Barber, M
    [J]. AGE AND AGEING, 2001, 30 (02) : 127 - 128