Instrumental variable meta-analysis of aggregated randomized drug trial data for evaluating proposed target mechanisms

IntroductionArthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) after degenerative meniscus tears is one of the most frequently performed surgeries in orthopaedics. Although several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been published that showed no clear benefit compared with sham treatment or non-surgical treatment, the incidence of APM remains high. The common perception by most orthopaedic surgeons is that there are subgroups of patients thatdoneed APM to improve, and they argue that each study sample of the existing trials is not representative for the day-to-day patients in the clinic. Therefore, the objective of this individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) is to assess whether there are subgroups of patients with degenerative meniscus lesions who benefit from APM in comparison with non-surgical or sham treatment.Methods and analysisAn existing systematic review will be updated to identify all RCTs worldwide that evaluated APM compared with sham treatment or non-surgical treatment in patients with knee symptoms and degenerative meniscus tears. Time and effort will be spent in contacting principal investigators of the original trials and encourage them to collaborate in this project by sharing their trial data. All individual participant data will be validated for missing data, internal data consistency, randomisation integrity and censoring patterns. After validation, all datasets will be combined and analysed using a one-staged and two-staged approach. The RCTs’ characteristics will be used for the assessment of clinical homogeneity and generalisability of the findings. The most important outcome will be the difference between APM and control groups in knee pain, function and quality of life 2 years after the intervention. Other outcomes of interest will include the difference in adverse events and mental health.Ethics and disseminationAll trial data will be anonymised before it is shared with the authors. The data will be encrypted and stored on a secure server located in the Netherlands. No major ethical concerns remain. This IPDMA will provide the evidence base to update and tailor diagnostic and treatment protocols as well as (international) guidelines for patients for whom orthopaedic surgeons consider APM. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017067240.

Download Full-text

Safety and efficacy of digoxin: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational and controlled trial data

BMJ ◽

10.1136/bmj.h4937 ◽

2015 ◽

pp. h4937

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Trial Data ◽

Safety And Efficacy

Download Full-text

Benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines: comparison of trial data from clinical study reports with corresponding trial register entries and journal publications

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-020-01300-1 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Lars Jørgensen ◽

Peter C. Gøtzsche ◽

Tom Jefferson

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Study ◽

Hpv Vaccine ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Trial Data ◽

Link Type ◽

Trial Register ◽

Journal Publications ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Clinical Study Reports

Abstract Background No study has looked at differences of pooled estimates—such as meta-analyses—of corresponding study documents of the same intervention. In this study, we compared meta-analyses of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine trial data from clinical study reports with trial data from corresponding trial register entries and journal publications. Methods We obtained clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency and GlaxoSmithKline, corresponding trial register entries from ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding journal publications via the Cochrane Collaboration’s Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar and PubMed. Two researchers extracted data. We compared reporting of trial design aspects and 20 prespecified benefit and harm outcomes extracted from each study document type. Risk ratios were calculated with the random effects inverse variance method. Results We included study documents from 22 randomized clinical trials and 2 follow-up studies with 95,670 healthy participants and non-HPV vaccine comparators (placebo, HPV vaccine adjuvants and hepatitis vaccines). We obtained 24 clinical study reports, 24 corresponding trial register entries and 23 corresponding journal publications; the median number of pages was 1351 (range 357 to 11,456), 32 (range 11 to 167) and 11 (range 7 to 83), respectively. All 24 (100%) clinical study reports, no (0%) trial register entries and 9 (39%) journal publications reported on all six major design-related biases defined by the Cochrane Handbook version 2011. The clinical study reports reported more inclusion criteria (mean 7.0 vs. 5.8 [trial register entries] and 4.0 [journal publications]) and exclusion criteria (mean 17.8 vs. 11.7 and 5.0) but fewer primary outcomes (mean 1.6 vs. 3.5 and 1.2) and secondary outcomes (mean 8.8 vs. 13.0 and 3.2) than the trial register entries. Results were posted for 19 trial register entries (79%). Compared to the clinical study reports, the trial register entries and journal publications contained 3% and 44% of the seven assessed benefit data points (6879 vs. 230 and 3015) and 38% and 31% of the 13 assessed harm data points (167,550 vs. 64,143 and 51,899). No meta-analysis estimate differed significantly when we compared pooled risk ratio estimates of corresponding study document data as ratios of relative risk. Conclusion There were no significant differences in the meta-analysis estimates of the assessed outcomes from corresponding study documents. The clinical study reports were the superior study documents in terms of the quantity and the quality of the data they contained and should be used as primary data sources in systematic reviews. Systematic review registration The protocol for our comparison is registered on PROSPERO as an addendum to our systematic review of the benefits and harms of the HPV vaccines: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20180320.pdf: CRD42017056093. Our systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO on January 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20170030.pdf. Two protocol amendments were registered on PROSPERO on November 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20171116.pdf. Our index of the HPV vaccine studies was published in Systematic Reviews on January 2018: 10.1186/s13643-018-0675-z. A description of the challenges obtaining the data was published on September 2018: 10.1136/bmj.k3694.

Download Full-text