Available online 24 August 2017
Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy
- a Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205
- b Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD
- c The TMJ Association, Ltd., P.O. Box 26770, Milwaukee, WI 53226
- d Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, 20 North Pine Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201
- e Department of Neurology-Neuromuscular Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 733 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205
- f Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 5510 Nathan Shock Drive, Suite 100, Baltimore, MD 21224
- g Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205
- h Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205
- i Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, The Women's Mood Disorders Center, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 550 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205
- j Welch Medical Library, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 2024 Bldg. 1-213, Baltimore, MD 21287
- k Johns Hopkins University Peabody Institute, 1 East Mount Vernon Place, Baltimore, MD 21202
- l Malone Center for Engineering in Healthcare, Johns Hopkins University Whiting School of Engineering, Malone Hall, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
- Received 28 June 2017, Revised 8 July 2017, Accepted 29 July 2017, Available online 24 August 2017
Abstract
Objective
To determine whether disagreements among multiple data sources affect systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
Study Design and Setting
Eligible RCTs examined gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression, reported in public (e.g., journal articles) and non-public sources (clinical study reports [CSRs] and individual participant data [IPD]).
Results
We found 21 gabapentin RCTs (74 reports, six IPD) and seven quetiapine RCTs (50 reports, one IPD); most were reported in journal articles (18/21 [86%] and 6/7 [86%], respectively). When available, CSRs contained the most trial design and risk of bias information. CSRs and IPD contained the most results. For the outcome domains “pain intensity” (gabapentin) and “depression” (quetiapine), we found single trials with 68 and 98 different meta-analyzable results, respectively; by purposefully selecting one meta-analyzable result for each RCT, we could change the overall result for pain intensity from effective (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-0.45; 95%CI -0.63 to -0.27) to ineffective (SMD=-0.06; 95%CI -0.24 to 0.12). We could change the effect for depression from a medium effect (SMD=-0.55; 95%CI -0.85 to -0.25) to a small effect (SMD=-0.26; 95%CI -0.41 to -0.1).
Conclusions
Disagreements across data sources affect the effect size, statistical significance, and interpretation of trials and meta-analyses.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Note to users:
Accepted manuscripts are Articles in Press that have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the Editorial Board of this publication. They have not yet been copy edited and/or formatted in the publication house style, and may not yet have the full ScienceDirect functionality, e.g., supplementary files may still need to be added, links to references may not resolve yet etc. The text could still change before final publication.
Although accepted manuscripts do not have all bibliographic details available yet, they can already be cited using the year of online publication and the DOI, as follows: author(s), article title, Publication (year), DOI. Please consult the journal's reference style for the exact appearance of these elements, abbreviation of journal names and use of punctuation.
When the final article is assigned to volumes/issues of the Publication, the Article in Press version will be removed and the final version will appear in the associated published volumes/issues of the Publication. The date the article was first made available online will be carried over.