4.5 Review

Methods to Address Confounding and Other Biases in Meta-Analyses: Review and Recommendations

期刊

ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 43, 期 -, 页码 19-35

出版社

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-051920-114020

关键词

meta-analysis; bias; confounding; observational studies; sensitivity analysis

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01 LM013866R01, R01 CA222147]
  2. NIH [UL1TR003142]
  3. Biostatistics Shared Resource (BSR) of the NIH [P30CA124435]
  4. Quantitative Sciences Unit through the Stanford Diabetes Research Center [P30DK116074]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Meta-analyses play a critical role in cumulative science, but can lead to misleading conclusions if the primary studies they include are biased. This article provides practical guidance for addressing biases that affect the internal validity of studies in meta-analyses, focusing on sensitivity analyses to quantify potential biases. Various sensitivity analysis methods are reviewed, with a focus on recent developments that are easy to implement and interpret. The importance of routinely reporting sensitivity analyses in meta-analyses of potentially biased studies is emphasized.
Meta-analyses contribute critically to cumulative science, but they can produce misleading conclusions if their constituent primary studies are biased, for example by unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized studies. We provide practical guidance on how meta-analysts can address confounding and other biases that affect studies' internal validity, focusing primarily on sensitivity analyses that help quantify how biased the meta-analysis estimates might be. We review a number of sensitivity analysis methods to do so, especially recent developments that are straightforward to implement and interpret and that use somewhat less stringent statistical assumptions than do earlier methods. We give recommendations for how these newer methods could be applied in practice and illustrate using a previously published meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses can provide informative quantitative summaries of evidence strength, and we suggest reporting them routinely in meta-analyses of potentially biased studies. This recommendation in no way diminishes the importance of defining study eligibility criteria that reduce bias and of characterizing studies' risks of bias qualitatively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据