Pooling health‐related quality of life outcomes in meta‐analysis—a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability

Research Synthesis Methods - Tập 2 Số 3 - Trang 188-203 - 2011
Kristian Thorlund1, Stephen D. Walter1, Bradley C. Johnston2,1, Toshi A. Furukawa3, Gordon Guyatt1
1Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
2Department of Anaesthesia & Pain Medicine Hospital for Sick Children Toronto Ontario Canada
3Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto Japan

Tóm tắt

Background– Meta‐analyses of health‐related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes present difficulties in interpretation when studies use different instruments to measure the same construct. Presentation of results in standard deviation units (standardized mean difference) is widely used but is limited by vulnerability to differential variability in populations enrolled and interpretational challenges.Objective– The objective of this study is to identify and describe the available approaches for enhancing interpretability of meta‐analyses involving HRQL outcomes.Findings– We identified 12 approaches in three categories: Summary estimates derived from the pooled standardized mean difference: conversion to units of the most familiar instrument or to risk difference or odds ratio. These approaches remain vulnerable to differential variability in populations. Summary estimates derived from the individual trial summary statistics: conversion to units of the most familiar instrument or to ratio of means. Both are appropriate complementary approaches to measures derived from converted probabilities. Summary estimates derived from the individual trial summary statistics and established minimally important differences for all instruments: presentation in minimally important difference units or conversion to risk difference or odds ratio. Risk differences are ideal for balancing desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative interventions.Conclusion– The use of these approaches may enhance the interpretability and the usefulness of systematic reviews involving HRQL outcomes. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Aki EA, 2011, Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

10.1002/sim.4298

Barbui C, 2008, Effectiveness of paroxetine in the acute phase treatment of adults with major depression: a systematic re‐examination of published and unpublished randomised data, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 178, 581

Beck AT, 1967, BDI‐II. Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd ed San Antonio: Psychological Corporation, 1996; Hamilton M. Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness, The British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 278

10.1159/000162296

10.1016/0304-3959(83)90088-X

10.1002/1097-0258(20001130)19:22<3127::AID-SIM784>3.0.CO;2-M

Cohen J, 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences

Cox DR, 1989, Analysis of binary data

DeLoach LJ, 1998, The visual analog scale in the immediate postoperative period: intrasubject variability and correlation with a numeric scale, Anesthesia and Analgesia, 86, 102

10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005

10.1586/14737167.4.5.515

Friedrich JO, 2008, The ratio of means method as and alternative to mean differences for analyzing continuous outcome variables in meta‐analysis: a simulation study, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 1

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.016

10.1016/S0140-6736(99)01163-0

10.1371/journal.pone.0019070

10.1016/j.schres.2010.10.016

10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114229

10.4065/77.4.371

Guyatt GH, 2008, Users' guide to the medical literature: a manual for evidence‐based clinical practice

10.1136/bmj.39493.646875.AE

10.1111/j.2044-8260.1967.tb00530.x

Hasselblad V, 1995, Meta‐analysis of screening and diagnostic tests, Quantitative Methods in Psychology, 117, 167

Hedges LV, 1985, Statistical Methods for Meta‐analysis

HigginsJPT GreenS(editors).Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2[updated September 2009].The Cochrane Collaboration 2008. Available fromwww.cochrane-handbook.org.

Hsu LM, 2004, Biases of success rate differences shown in binomial effect size displays, Psychological Bulletin, 9, 183

10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6

Johnston BC, 2010, Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta‐analysis: the application of minimally important difference units, BMC Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 1

JohnstonB ThorlundK daCostaB FurukawaT GuyattG.2011.Minimal important difference in meta‐analyses: applying anchor‐based and distribution‐based methods to increase precision.Abstract Poster Presentation (P3B377) 19th Cochrane Colloquium Madrid Oct 2011.

10.1164/ajrccm/145.6.1321

10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181856024

10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.09.014

10.3928/0048-5713-20020901-06

10.1016/S0140-6736(96)04201-8

10.1002/14651858.CD003793.pub2

10.1192/bjp.134.4.382

10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C

10.1016/0304-3959(83)90126-4

Review Manager (RevMan)Version 5.0 [2008.

10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01866-8

10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.0k375.x

10.1081/COPD-200050651

10.1136/bmj.318.7197.1548

10.1164/ajrccm/145.3.533

10.1016/0895-4356(91)90035-8

10.1002/nur.4770130405

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Research Synthesis Methods

Tập 2 Số 3

188-203

Thông tin tác giả