Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2014

01.04.2014 | Multimorbidity Symposium

Addressing Multimorbidity in Evidence Integration and Synthesis

verfasst von: Thomas A. Trikalinos, MD, Jodi B. Segal, MD, MPH, Cynthia M. Boyd, MD, MPH

Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 4/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

To minimize bias, clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for managing patients with multiple conditions should be informed by well-planned syntheses of the totality of the relevant evidence by means of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, deficiencies along the entire evidentiary pathway hinder the development of evidence-based CPGs. Published reports of trials and observational studies often do not provide usable data on treatment effect heterogeneity, perhaps because their design, analysis and presentation is seldom geared towards informing on how multimorbidity modifies the effect of treatments. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses inherit all the limitations of their building blocks and introduce additional of their own, including selection biases at the level of the included studies, ecological biases, and analytical challenges. To generate recommendations to help negotiate some of the challenges in synthesizing the primary literature, so that the results of the evidence synthesis is applicable to the care of those with multiple conditions. Informal group process. We have built upon established general guidance, and provide additional recommendations specific to systematic reviews that could improve the CPGs for multimorbid patients. We suggest that following the additional recommendations is good practice, but acknowledge that not all proposed recommendations are of equal importance, validity and feasibility, and that further work is needed to test and refine the recommendations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Lugtenberg M, Burgers JS, Clancy C, Westert GP, Schneider EC. Current guidelines have limited applicability to patients with comorbid conditions: a systematic analysis of evidence-based guidelines. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(10):e25987.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Lugtenberg M, Burgers JS, Clancy C, Westert GP, Schneider EC. Current guidelines have limited applicability to patients with comorbid conditions: a systematic analysis of evidence-based guidelines. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(10):e25987.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Fortin M, Contant E, Savard C, Hudon C, Poitras ME, Almirall J. Canadian guidelines for clinical practice: an analysis of their quality and relevance to the care of adults with comorbidity. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:74.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Fortin M, Contant E, Savard C, Hudon C, Poitras ME, Almirall J. Canadian guidelines for clinical practice: an analysis of their quality and relevance to the care of adults with comorbidity. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:74.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294(6):716–24.CrossRef Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294(6):716–24.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2007;297(11):1233–40.CrossRef Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2007;297(11):1233–40.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Zulman DM, Sussman JB, Chen X, Cigolle CT, Blaum CS, Hayward RA. Examining the evidence: a systematic review of the inclusion and analysis of older adults in randomized controlled trials. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(7):783–90.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Zulman DM, Sussman JB, Chen X, Cigolle CT, Blaum CS, Hayward RA. Examining the evidence: a systematic review of the inclusion and analysis of older adults in randomized controlled trials. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(7):783–90.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2007;298(10):1209–12.CrossRef Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2007;298(10):1209–12.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Boyd CM, Vollenweider D, Puhan MA. Informing evidence-based decision-making for patients with comorbidity: availability of necessary information in clinical trials for chronic diseases. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):e41601.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Boyd CM, Vollenweider D, Puhan MA. Informing evidence-based decision-making for patients with comorbidity: availability of necessary information in clinical trials for chronic diseases. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):e41601.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Uhlig K, Leff B, Kent DM, Dy S, Brunnhuber K, Burgers JS, Greenfield S, Guyatt G, High K, Leipzig R, Mulrow C, Schmader K, Schunemann H, Walter LC, Woodcock J, Boyd CM. A framework for crafting clinical practice guidelines that are relevant to the care and management of people with multimorbidity. J Gen Intern Med. 2013. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2659-y. Uhlig K, Leff B, Kent DM, Dy S, Brunnhuber K, Burgers JS, Greenfield S, Guyatt G, High K, Leipzig R, Mulrow C, Schmader K, Schunemann H, Walter LC, Woodcock J, Boyd CM. A framework for crafting clinical practice guidelines that are relevant to the care and management of people with multimorbidity. J Gen Intern Med. 2013. doi: 10.​1007/​s11606-013-2659-y.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, eds. Committee on standards for systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research board on health care services. Finding what works in health care, standards for systematic reviews. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, The National Academies Press. www.nap.edu Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, eds. Committee on standards for systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research board on health care services. Finding what works in health care, standards for systematic reviews. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, The National Academies Press. www.​nap.​edu
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.​cochrane-handbook.​org.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S, Sharp BA. AHRQ series paper 1: comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):481–3.PubMedCrossRef Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S, Sharp BA. AHRQ series paper 1: comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):481–3.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Helfand M, Balshem H. AHRQ series paper 2: principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):484–90.PubMedCrossRef Helfand M, Balshem H. AHRQ series paper 2: principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):484–90.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):491–501.PubMedCrossRef Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):491–501.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):502–12.PubMedCrossRef Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):502–12.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions–agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):513–23.PubMedCrossRef Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions–agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):513–23.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Relevo R, Balshem H. Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1168–77.PubMedCrossRef Relevo R, Balshem H. Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1168–77.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Tsertsvadze A, Maglione M, Chou R, et al. Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: current efforts in AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1208–15.PubMedCrossRef Tsertsvadze A, Maglione M, Chou R, et al. Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: current efforts in AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1208–15.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1187–97.PubMedCrossRef Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1187–97.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Dissemination CfRa. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, UK: University of York; 2009. Dissemination CfRa. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, UK: University of York; 2009.
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, eds. Committee on standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines board on health care services. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies the National Academies Press. www.nap.edu Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, eds. Committee on standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines board on health care services. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies the National Academies Press. www.​nap.​edu
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Steinberg KK, Smith SJ, Stroup DF, et al. Comparison of effect estimates from a meta-analysis of summary data from published studies and from a meta-analysis using individual patient data for ovarian cancer studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145(10):917–25.PubMedCrossRef Steinberg KK, Smith SJ, Stroup DF, et al. Comparison of effect estimates from a meta-analysis of summary data from published studies and from a meta-analysis using individual patient data for ovarian cancer studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145(10):917–25.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):76–97.PubMedCrossRef Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):76–97.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380–7.PubMedCrossRef Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380–7.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Vollenweider D, Boyd CM, Puhan MA. High prevalence of potential biases threatens the interpretation of trials in patients with chronic disease. BMC Med. 2011;9:73.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Vollenweider D, Boyd CM, Puhan MA. High prevalence of potential biases threatens the interpretation of trials in patients with chronic disease. BMC Med. 2011;9:73.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):395–400.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):395–400.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Guiding principles for the care of older adults with multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians: American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity. J Am Geriatr Soc. Oct 2012;60(10):E1-E25. Guiding principles for the care of older adults with multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians: American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity. J Am Geriatr Soc. Oct 2012;60(10):E1-E25.
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA Focused Update of the Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Updating the 2007 Guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011;123(18):2022–60.PubMedCrossRef Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA Focused Update of the Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Updating the 2007 Guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011;123(18):2022–60.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Dahabreh IJ, Sheldrick RC, Paulus JK, et al. Do observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? A systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(15):1893–901.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Dahabreh IJ, Sheldrick RC, Paulus JK, et al. Do observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? A systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(15):1893–901.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AM. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(34):1–154.PubMed MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AM. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(34):1–154.PubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1887–92.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1887–92.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1878–86.PubMedCrossRef Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1878–86.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Byar DP. Why data bases should not replace randomized clinical trials. Biometrics. 1980;36(2):337–42.PubMedCrossRef Byar DP. Why data bases should not replace randomized clinical trials. Biometrics. 1980;36(2):337–42.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.CrossRef Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Gluud LL, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Woods L, Harris R, Sterne JA. Correction: reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(3):219.PubMedCrossRef Gluud LL, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Woods L, Harris R, Sterne JA. Correction: reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(3):219.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Moja LP, Telaro E, D’Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005;330(7499):1053.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Moja LP, Telaro E, D’Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005;330(7499):1053.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(11):982–9.PubMedCrossRef Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(11):982–9.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352(9128):609–13.PubMedCrossRef Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352(9128):609–13.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273(5):408–12.CrossRef Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273(5):408–12.CrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Gabler NB, Duan N, Liao D, Elmore JG, Ganiats TG, Kravitz RL. Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge? Trials. 2009;10:43.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Gabler NB, Duan N, Liao D, Elmore JG, Ganiats TG, Kravitz RL. Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge? Trials. 2009;10:43.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.PubMedCrossRef Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in healthcare. Meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2008. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in healthcare. Meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2008.
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage; 2009. Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage; 2009.
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Treating individuals 4: can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Lancet. 2005;365(9456):341–6.PubMedCrossRef Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Treating individuals 4: can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Lancet. 2005;365(9456):341–6.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet. 1998;351(9096):123–7.PubMedCrossRef Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet. 1998;351(9096):123–7.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Berlin JA. Invited commentary: benefits of heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;142(4):383–7.PubMed Berlin JA. Invited commentary: benefits of heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;142(4):383–7.PubMed
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–708.PubMedCrossRef Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–708.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Schmid CH, Stark PC, Berlin JA, Landais P, Lau J. Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(7):683–97.PubMedCrossRef Schmid CH, Stark PC, Berlin JA, Landais P, Lau J. Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(7):683–97.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Trikalinos TA, Olkin I. A method for the meta-analysis of mutually exclusive binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2008;27(21):4279–300.PubMedCrossRef Trikalinos TA, Olkin I. A method for the meta-analysis of mutually exclusive binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2008;27(21):4279–300.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Kirkham JJ, Riley RD, Williamson PR. A multivariate meta-analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews. Stat Med. 2012;31(20):2179–95.PubMedCrossRef Kirkham JJ, Riley RD, Williamson PR. A multivariate meta-analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews. Stat Med. 2012;31(20):2179–95.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Jackson D, Riley R, White IR. Multivariate meta-analysis: Potential and promise. Stat Med. 2011;30(20):2481–98. Jackson D, Riley R, White IR. Multivariate meta-analysis: Potential and promise. Stat Med. 2011;30(20):2481–98.
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Riley RD, Thompson JR, Abrams KR. An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown. Biostatistics. 2008;9(1):172–86.PubMedCrossRef Riley RD, Thompson JR, Abrams KR. An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown. Biostatistics. 2008;9(1):172–86.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, Antczak-Bouckoms A, Mosteller F, Colditz GA. Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes by regression with random effects. Stat Med. 1998;17(22):2537–50.PubMedCrossRef Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, Antczak-Bouckoms A, Mosteller F, Colditz GA. Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes by regression with random effects. Stat Med. 1998;17(22):2537–50.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Trikalinos TA, Olkin I. Meta-analysis of effect sizes reported at multiple time points: a multivariate approach. Clin Trials. 2012;9(5):610–20. Trikalinos TA, Olkin I. Meta-analysis of effect sizes reported at multiple time points: a multivariate approach. Clin Trials. 2012;9(5):610–20.
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Lu G, Ades AE, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Briggs AH, Caldwell DM. Meta-analysis of mixed treatment comparisons at multiple follow-up times. Stat Med. 2007;26(20):3681–99.PubMedCrossRef Lu G, Ades AE, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Briggs AH, Caldwell DM. Meta-analysis of mixed treatment comparisons at multiple follow-up times. Stat Med. 2007;26(20):3681–99.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313–24.PubMedCrossRef Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313–24.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Cipriani A, Barbui C, Rizzo C, Salanti G. What is a multiple treatments meta-analysis? Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2012;21(2):151–3.PubMedCrossRef Cipriani A, Barbui C, Rizzo C, Salanti G. What is a multiple treatments meta-analysis? Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2012;21(2):151–3.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;14(4):429–37.CrossRef Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;14(4):429–37.CrossRef
63.
Zurück zum Zitat Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;14(4):417–28.CrossRef Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;14(4):417–28.CrossRef
64.
Zurück zum Zitat Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat in Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24.CrossRef Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat in Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24.CrossRef
65.
Zurück zum Zitat Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):80–97.CrossRef Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):80–97.CrossRef
66.
Zurück zum Zitat Jansen JP. Network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate level data. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):177–90.CrossRef Jansen JP. Network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate level data. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):177–90.CrossRef
67.
Zurück zum Zitat Salanti G, Schmid CH. Research Synthesis Methods special issue on network meta-analysis: introduction from the editors. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):69–70.CrossRef Salanti G, Schmid CH. Research Synthesis Methods special issue on network meta-analysis: introduction from the editors. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):69–70.CrossRef
68.
Zurück zum Zitat Hedges LV, Tipton E, Johnson MC. Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(1):39–65.CrossRef Hedges LV, Tipton E, Johnson MC. Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(1):39–65.CrossRef
69.
Zurück zum Zitat Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1106–10.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1106–10.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
70.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12.PubMedCrossRef Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Zurück zum Zitat Rogowski WH, Grosse SD, Khoury MJ. Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10(7):489–95.PubMedCrossRef Rogowski WH, Grosse SD, Khoury MJ. Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10(7):489–95.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Zurück zum Zitat Khoury MJ. The case for a global human genome epidemiology initiative. Nat Genet. 2004;36(10):1027–8.PubMedCrossRef Khoury MJ. The case for a global human genome epidemiology initiative. Nat Genet. 2004;36(10):1027–8.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Addressing Multimorbidity in Evidence Integration and Synthesis
verfasst von
Thomas A. Trikalinos, MD
Jodi B. Segal, MD, MPH
Cynthia M. Boyd, MD, MPH
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2014
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Ausgabe 4/2014
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Elektronische ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2661-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2014

Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Healing Arts

Chronicity

Clinical Practice: Exercises in Clinical Reasoning

An HIV-Positive Patient with Back Pain: Too Many Choices

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Positiver FIT: Die Ursache liegt nicht immer im Dickdarm

27.05.2024 Blut im Stuhl Nachrichten

Immunchemischer Stuhltest positiv, Koloskopie negativ – in solchen Fällen kann die Blutungsquelle auch weiter proximal sitzen. Ein Forschungsteam hat nachgesehen, wie häufig und in welchen Lokalisationen das der Fall ist.

GLP-1-Agonisten können Fortschreiten diabetischer Retinopathie begünstigen

24.05.2024 Diabetische Retinopathie Nachrichten

Möglicherweise hängt es von der Art der Diabetesmedikamente ab, wie hoch das Risiko der Betroffenen ist, dass sich sehkraftgefährdende Komplikationen verschlimmern.

Mehr Lebenszeit mit Abemaciclib bei fortgeschrittenem Brustkrebs?

24.05.2024 Mammakarzinom Nachrichten

In der MONARCHE-3-Studie lebten Frauen mit fortgeschrittenem Hormonrezeptor-positivem, HER2-negativem Brustkrebs länger, wenn sie zusätzlich zu einem nicht steroidalen Aromatasehemmer mit Abemaciclib behandelt wurden; allerdings verfehlte der numerische Zugewinn die statistische Signifikanz.

ADT zur Radiatio nach Prostatektomie: Wenn, dann wohl länger

24.05.2024 Prostatakarzinom Nachrichten

Welchen Nutzen es trägt, wenn die Strahlentherapie nach radikaler Prostatektomie um eine Androgendeprivation ergänzt wird, hat die RADICALS-HD-Studie untersucht. Nun liegen die Ergebnisse vor. Sie sprechen für länger dauernden Hormonentzug.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.