Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Metlit-08 Metode Penelitian SR-MA - RR
Metlit-08 Metode Penelitian SR-MA - RR
Metode Penelitian
Systematic Review/Meta-analysis
Indah S. Widyahening
Siti Rizny F. Saldi
Respati W. Ranakusuma
Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine (CEEBM) Unit
RSUPN Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo – Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia
Acknowledgements
Paul Glasziou, Elaine Beller (IEBH, Bond University
Australia)
Steve McDonald, Sally Green, Miranda Cumpston
(Cochrane Australasia)
Cochrane Training
https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning
Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of
Interventions
https://training.cochrane.org/handbooks
Level of evidence
SR-MA
RCTs
Cohort studies
Case-controlled studies
Case series/reports
Background information/
expert opinion
MEDLINE 2010
2,000 articles / day
Approximately
75 new trials
published every
day
Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?. PLoS Med. 2010;7(9)
So how should we go about summarizing
medical information?
Competence and Credible, Excel in Organization, Excel in Operation, Beyond Expectations, Management by Objective
Traditional approach
Expert opinion
Narrative review articles
Consensus statements
(group expert opinion)
New approach
(Systematic reviews)
Explicit quantitative
synthesis of ALL the
evidence
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best
Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine (CEEBM) Unit
evidence for clinical decisions. AnnDr.Intern
RSUPN Med. 1997;126(5):376-80.
Cipto Mangunkusumo – Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia
Competence and Credible, Excel in Organization, Excel in Operation, Beyond Expectations, Management by Objective
Systematic review
“The application of strategies that limit bias in the
assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all
relevant studies on a specific topic.”
Oxford Centre of Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels Table
Two types:
Qualitative (non-statistical)
Quantitative (statistical) or meta-analysis
Integrative Literature
Overview (review article)
Unsystematic
No sufficient appraisals
Prone to severe bias
Systematic review
Systematic
No formal statistical methods
Meta-analysis
Systematic review and formal
statistical methods
Integrative Literature
Overview (review article)
Unsystematic
No sufficient appraisals
Prone to severe bias
Systematic review
Systematic
No formal statistical methods
Meta-analysis
Systematic review and formal
statistical methods
What is meta-analysis?
Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to
analyze and summarize the results of the included studies.
Meta-analysis = quantitative approach for systematically
combining results of previous research to arrive at conclusions
about the body of research
What does it mean?
Quantitative → numbers
Systematic → methodical
Combining → putting together
Previous research → what’s already done
Conclusions → new knowledge
Why meta-analysis?
To quantitatively summarize estimate from
previous studies (i.e. resolve controversies)
Helps guide for further research
Increase statistical power
Improves generalizability
•Assess quality
C. Abstraction •Extract data and calculate individual summary
measures
•Quantitative pooling
D. Analysis •Sensitivity analysis
•Investigate heterogeneity & biases
https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma-protocols/
Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine (CEEBM) Unit
RSUPN Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo – Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia
Competence and Credible, Excel in Organization, Excel in Operation, Beyond Expectations, Management by Objective
A. Identification
Be methodical: plan first → protocol
How to search?
▪ Sources
▪ Find published relevant articles:
▪ Major bibliographic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane.
▪ Textbooks, printed journals, reference lists
▪ Unpublished materials:
▪ Theses, dissertations, trial registries, contact with experts/personal
communication (peer group), etc.
▪ Search strategies:
▪ Database: MeSH terms and text words
▪ Others: hand-searching → a manual page-by-page
examination of the entire contents, to identify all eligible
reports
▪ No limitation on years and languages
Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine (CEEBM) Unit
RSUPN Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo – Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia
Competence and Credible, Excel in Organization, Excel in Operation, Beyond Expectations, Management by Objective
1
Standard Error
3
0.1 0.33 0.6 1 3 10
Source: Matthias Egger & Jonathan Sterne Effect
Asymmetrical funnel plot
0
1
Standard Error
Small study
effect
2
3
0.1 0.33 0.6 1 3 10
Source: Matthias Egger & Jonathan Sterne Effect
Funnel Plots
Symmetrical plot in the
absence of bias (smaller
studies with no
significant
effect shown by open
circles)
True heterogeneity:
If trials do not estimate the same underlying effect of the
same intervention
Size of effect differs according to study size e.g.
if the true effect is larger in smaller trials
Differences in underlying risk
Intensity of intervention (comprehensive geriatric
assessment)
Chance
B. Selection
Be methodical: plan first → protocol
Aim: to include all relevant studies, based on:
Study design: randomization (for clinical trial), cohort, etc.
Patients’ characteristics: diagnosis (including severity), gender, age,
group, race, etc.
Similarity of exposure or treatment (e.g. drug class, dosage)
Similarity of outcomes (case definitions)
Setting (emergency department, outpatient, inpatient)
Year of publication or conduct (especially if technology or typical dosing
changes)
Minimum sample size
Etc.
C. Abstraction
Compile relevant data
May need information from author(s)
Summarize for analysis
Analyze for risk of biases
Domains to address
random sequence generation
allocation concealment
blinding of participants and personnel
blinding of outcome assessment
incomplete outcome data
selective reporting
other bias
Blinding of outcome
Detection
assessment Outcome Outcome
assessment assessment
Attrition Incomplete outcome data
D. Analysis
Combine data to arrive at a summary, 3 measures
Effect Size (OR/RR/MD), with CI of each study
Variance with 95% Confidence Interval
Test of heterogeneity
Two Graphs
Forest Plot
Funnel Plot
Examine why the studies are heterogeneous (if
they are) → test of heterogeneity
Use Statistical Packages, several choices
Effect measure
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Trial 4
Many similar trials
Trial 5
Trial 6
Trial 7
Trial 1+2+3
+4+5+6+7
RR
RR =
= ??
??
Relative Risk
Relative Risk of Death
(RR)
(RR) of death
Favours steroid Favours placebo
Trial Deaths
Deaths
Babies Steroid Placebo
#1 1070 6.8
36 % 11.2%
deaths 36 deaths
532 babies 532 babies
6.8%
percent who died with steroid
RR = = 0.61
11.2%
11.2%
percent who died with placebo
Relative
Relative
Risk
Risk (RR)
(RR) of Death
of death
Favours Point
steroid Favours placebo
estimate
Trial Deaths
Babies Steroid Placebo "best guess at truth"
#1 1070 6.8% 11.2%
Relative
Relative
Risk
Risk (RR)
(RR) of Death
of death
Favours steroid Favours placebo
Trial Deaths
Babies Steroid Placebo "Cumulative Meta-analysis"
#1 1070 6.8% 11.2%
Total 2486
Relative
Relative
Risk
Risk (RR)
(RR) of Death
of death
0.1 0.5 1 2 10
Forest plot
The data for each trial are here, divided into experimental and
control groups
Forest plot
• This is the % weight given to each study in the pooled analysis
• For the mean difference: SDs are used together with the sample
sizes to compute the weight given to each study.
Forest plot
The label above the graph tells you which statistic has been
used
Forest plot
• Mid point of the box shows point effect estimate of each study
• The size of the block for each study is proportional to the % weight.
• The horizontal line represents the confidence interval.
Forest plot
• Take care to read the labels
• Things to the left do not always mean the treatment is
better than the control
Forest plot
• The pooled analysis is given a diamond shape
• The widest bit is located on the point estimate, and the horizontal width in the
confidence interval.
• Does the confidence interval cross the line of no effect?
Overall effect
estimate
Forest plot
1
2
3
4
5
Competence and Credible, Excel in Organization, Excel in Operation, Beyond Expectations, Management by Objective
Study I 1992
Study II 1994
Study III 1995
Study IV 1995
Study V 1996
Study VI 1997
Study VII 1999
Study VIII 2000
Combined
0.1 10
OR = 1
Favor drug Favor placebo
Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine (CEEBM) Unit
RSUPN Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo – Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia
Competence and Credible, Excel in Organization, Excel in Operation, Beyond Expectations, Management by Objective
Study I 1992
Study II 1994
Study III 1995
Study IV 1995
Study V 1996
Study VI 1997
Study VII 1999
Study VIII 2000
Combined
-0.3 +0.3
Favor drug Xe- Xc= 0 Favor placebo
Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine (CEEBM) Unit
RSUPN Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo – Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia
Competence and Credible, Excel in Organization, Excel in Operation, Beyond Expectations, Management by Objective
Issues in meta-analysis
Choosing a model -- heterogeneity
Fixed effects model or random effects?
Bias in meta analysis
poor quality of trials
publication bias
Quality control in meta analysis
PRISMA guidelines
Statistical Software for meta analysis
What is heterogeneity
Variation or Differences
between the true intervention effects underlying
the different studies
Clinical diversity/heterogeneity
Participants
e.g. condition, age, gender, location, study eligibility
criteria
Interventions
intensity/dose, duration, delivery, additional
components, experience of practitioners, control
(placebo, none, standard care)
Outcomes
follow-up duration, ways of measuring, definition of an
event, cut-off points
Methodological diversity/heterogeneity
Design
e.g. randomised vs non-randomised
Conduct
e.g. risk of bias (allocation concealment, blinding, etc.),
approach to analysis
Identifying heterogeneity
Visual inspection (eyeball test) of forest plots
Chi-squared (χ2) test (Q test)
I2 statistic to quantify heterogeneity
Analysis
Many techniques
Focus on variability
Fixed effects model
Only intra-study, ignore inter-study variability
Narrower CI
Random effects model
Considers also inter-study variability
Broader CI
Bayesian statisticians (less popular)
Prior probability
Even broader CI
Unless the studies are very heterogeneous → fixed and
random model usually similar
Random (sampling)
error • assumes all studies are
measuring the same treatment
effect
• estimates that one effect
• if not for random (sampling)
error, all results would be
identical
Study
result
Common
Source: Julian Higgins true effect
Random-effects model
Random
error • assumes the treatment effect
varies between studies
• estimates the mean of the
distribution of effects
• weighted for both
within-study and between-study
variation (tau2, 2)
Study-
specific
effect
Mean of true
Source: Julian Higgins effects
Competence and Credible, Excel in Organization, Excel in Operation, Beyond Expectations, Management by Objective
Adapted from Ohlsson A, Aher SM. Early erythropoietin for preventing red blood cell transfusion in preterm
and/or low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3.
Some heterogeneity
Fixed Random
Adapted from Adams CE, Awad G, Rathbone J, Thornley B. Chlorpromazine versus placebo for schizophrenia.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2.
Small study effects
Fixed Random
Adapted from Li J, Zhang Q, Zhang M, Egger M. Intravenous magnesium for acute myocardial infarction.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2.
Competence and Credible, Excel in Organization, Excel in Operation, Beyond Expectations, Management by Objective
Investigating heterogeneity
Subgroup analysis
Splitting all the participant data into subgroups to
make comparisons between them
Aims:
To investigate heterogeneous results
To answer specific questions about particular patient
groups, types of intervention or types of study.
Example: Subsets of participants (males and
females), study settings (different geographical
locations).
Meta-regression
If studies are divided into subgroups, this may be viewed as an
investigation of how a categorical study characteristic is
associated with the intervention effects in the meta-analysis
For example, studies with adequate allocation sequence
concealment may yield different results from inadequate
concealment → Allocation sequence concealment (adequate vs.
inadequate) is a categorical characteristic at the study level.
Definition: An extension to subgroup analyses that allows the
effect of continuous, as well as categorical, characteristics to be
investigated, and in principle allows the effects of multiple
factors to be investigated simultaneously (although this is rarely
possible due to inadequate numbers of studies) (Thompson and
Higgins 2002).
Sensitivity analysis
Most decisions in systematic review are clearly objective and
non-contentious, BUT some are unclear.
We use sensitivity analysis to prove that the findings from a
systematic review are not dependent on such arbitrary/unclear
decisions
A sensitivity analysis is a repeat of the primary analysis/meta-
analysis in which alternative decisions or ranges of values are
substituted for decisions that were arbitrary or unclear.
Example:
If the eligibility of some studies in the meta-analysis is dubious because
they do not contain full details, sensitivity analysis may undertake the
meta-analysis twice
First, including all studies
Second, including only those that are definitely known to be eligible.
Sensitivity analysis is not sub-group analysis Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine (CEEBM) Unit
RSUPN Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo – Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia
Competence and Credible, Excel in Organization, Excel in Operation, Beyond Expectations, Management by Objective
https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/
Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine (CEEBM) Unit
RSUPN Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo – Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia
Competence and Credible, Excel in Organization, Excel in Operation, Beyond Expectations, Management by Objective
Advantages:
▪ Combined effect size: more definitive
▪ Enables subgroup analysis
▪ Background for further studies
Disadvantages:
▪ Statistical controversies
▪ Publication bias
▪ Disadvantages of secondary data
▪ Technical limitations: Details of studies rarely identical
Thank you