Discordances originated by multiple meta-analyses on interventions for myocardial infarction: A systematic review

Ersilia Lucenteforte, Lorenzo Moja, Valentina Pecoraro, Andrea A. Conti, Antonio Conti, Elena Crudeli, Alessio Galli, Gian Franco Gensini, Martina Minnelli, Alessandro Mugelli, Riccardo Proietti, Jonida Shtylla, Roberto D'Amico, Elena Parmelli, Gianni Virgili

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives To clarify the impact of multiple (covering the same population, intervention, control, and outcomes) systematic reviews (SRs) on interventions for myocardial infarction (MI). Study Design and Setting Clinical Evidence (BMJ Group) sections and related search strategies regarding MI were used to identify multiple SRs published between 1997 and 2007. Multiple SRs were classified as discordant if they featured conflicting results or interpretation of them. Results Thirty-six SRs (23.5% of 153 on the treatment or prevention of MI) were classified as multiple and grouped in 16 clusters [ie, at least two SRs with the same PICO (population, condition/disease, intervention, control) and at least one common outcome] exploring angioplasty, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, anticoagulants, antiplatelets, β-blockers, and stents. Complete agreement on statistically significant differences between interventions was found in 7 of 10 clusters with a shared composite outcome. Agreement was reduced when single outcomes were considered. Despite substantial variation and limited agreement in reporting of major outcomes, SRs agreed in their conclusions on the superiority of either the intervention or control in 14 of 16 clusters. Sources of minor discrepancies were found in terms of study and outcome selection, subgroup analyses, and interpretation of findings. Conclusion Multiple SRs agreed in their qualitative conclusions but not on reporting and on analyses of hard outcomes. Discordance on significance of treatment effects was due to a combination of variation in design with inclusion of different studies and lack of precision for single hard outcomes compared with a composite outcome. Such inconsistencies among SRs could potentially slow the translation of SRs' results to clinical and public health decision making and suggest the need for a broader methodological and clinical agreement on their design.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)246-256
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume68
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 1 2015

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Myocardial Infarction
Population Control
Angioplasty
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors
Anticoagulants
Stents
Decision Making
Public Health
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Therapeutics
Population

Keywords

  • Cardiovascular agents
  • Dissent and disputes
  • Evidence based medicine
  • Meta-analysis
  • Myocardial infarction
  • Policy making

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Discordances originated by multiple meta-analyses on interventions for myocardial infarction : A systematic review. / Lucenteforte, Ersilia; Moja, Lorenzo; Pecoraro, Valentina; Conti, Andrea A.; Conti, Antonio; Crudeli, Elena; Galli, Alessio; Gensini, Gian Franco; Minnelli, Martina; Mugelli, Alessandro; Proietti, Riccardo; Shtylla, Jonida; D'Amico, Roberto; Parmelli, Elena; Virgili, Gianni.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 68, No. 3, 01.03.2015, p. 246-256.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lucenteforte, E, Moja, L, Pecoraro, V, Conti, AA, Conti, A, Crudeli, E, Galli, A, Gensini, GF, Minnelli, M, Mugelli, A, Proietti, R, Shtylla, J, D'Amico, R, Parmelli, E & Virgili, G 2015, 'Discordances originated by multiple meta-analyses on interventions for myocardial infarction: A systematic review', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 246-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.004
Lucenteforte, Ersilia ; Moja, Lorenzo ; Pecoraro, Valentina ; Conti, Andrea A. ; Conti, Antonio ; Crudeli, Elena ; Galli, Alessio ; Gensini, Gian Franco ; Minnelli, Martina ; Mugelli, Alessandro ; Proietti, Riccardo ; Shtylla, Jonida ; D'Amico, Roberto ; Parmelli, Elena ; Virgili, Gianni. / Discordances originated by multiple meta-analyses on interventions for myocardial infarction : A systematic review. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2015 ; Vol. 68, No. 3. pp. 246-256.
@article{8982584294eb4b33ad05019c2702b257,
title = "Discordances originated by multiple meta-analyses on interventions for myocardial infarction: A systematic review",
abstract = "Objectives To clarify the impact of multiple (covering the same population, intervention, control, and outcomes) systematic reviews (SRs) on interventions for myocardial infarction (MI). Study Design and Setting Clinical Evidence (BMJ Group) sections and related search strategies regarding MI were used to identify multiple SRs published between 1997 and 2007. Multiple SRs were classified as discordant if they featured conflicting results or interpretation of them. Results Thirty-six SRs (23.5{\%} of 153 on the treatment or prevention of MI) were classified as multiple and grouped in 16 clusters [ie, at least two SRs with the same PICO (population, condition/disease, intervention, control) and at least one common outcome] exploring angioplasty, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, anticoagulants, antiplatelets, β-blockers, and stents. Complete agreement on statistically significant differences between interventions was found in 7 of 10 clusters with a shared composite outcome. Agreement was reduced when single outcomes were considered. Despite substantial variation and limited agreement in reporting of major outcomes, SRs agreed in their conclusions on the superiority of either the intervention or control in 14 of 16 clusters. Sources of minor discrepancies were found in terms of study and outcome selection, subgroup analyses, and interpretation of findings. Conclusion Multiple SRs agreed in their qualitative conclusions but not on reporting and on analyses of hard outcomes. Discordance on significance of treatment effects was due to a combination of variation in design with inclusion of different studies and lack of precision for single hard outcomes compared with a composite outcome. Such inconsistencies among SRs could potentially slow the translation of SRs' results to clinical and public health decision making and suggest the need for a broader methodological and clinical agreement on their design.",
keywords = "Cardiovascular agents, Dissent and disputes, Evidence based medicine, Meta-analysis, Myocardial infarction, Policy making",
author = "Ersilia Lucenteforte and Lorenzo Moja and Valentina Pecoraro and Conti, {Andrea A.} and Antonio Conti and Elena Crudeli and Alessio Galli and Gensini, {Gian Franco} and Martina Minnelli and Alessandro Mugelli and Riccardo Proietti and Jonida Shtylla and Roberto D'Amico and Elena Parmelli and Gianni Virgili",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.004",
language = "English",
volume = "68",
pages = "246--256",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Discordances originated by multiple meta-analyses on interventions for myocardial infarction

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Lucenteforte, Ersilia

AU - Moja, Lorenzo

AU - Pecoraro, Valentina

AU - Conti, Andrea A.

AU - Conti, Antonio

AU - Crudeli, Elena

AU - Galli, Alessio

AU - Gensini, Gian Franco

AU - Minnelli, Martina

AU - Mugelli, Alessandro

AU - Proietti, Riccardo

AU - Shtylla, Jonida

AU - D'Amico, Roberto

AU - Parmelli, Elena

AU - Virgili, Gianni

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - Objectives To clarify the impact of multiple (covering the same population, intervention, control, and outcomes) systematic reviews (SRs) on interventions for myocardial infarction (MI). Study Design and Setting Clinical Evidence (BMJ Group) sections and related search strategies regarding MI were used to identify multiple SRs published between 1997 and 2007. Multiple SRs were classified as discordant if they featured conflicting results or interpretation of them. Results Thirty-six SRs (23.5% of 153 on the treatment or prevention of MI) were classified as multiple and grouped in 16 clusters [ie, at least two SRs with the same PICO (population, condition/disease, intervention, control) and at least one common outcome] exploring angioplasty, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, anticoagulants, antiplatelets, β-blockers, and stents. Complete agreement on statistically significant differences between interventions was found in 7 of 10 clusters with a shared composite outcome. Agreement was reduced when single outcomes were considered. Despite substantial variation and limited agreement in reporting of major outcomes, SRs agreed in their conclusions on the superiority of either the intervention or control in 14 of 16 clusters. Sources of minor discrepancies were found in terms of study and outcome selection, subgroup analyses, and interpretation of findings. Conclusion Multiple SRs agreed in their qualitative conclusions but not on reporting and on analyses of hard outcomes. Discordance on significance of treatment effects was due to a combination of variation in design with inclusion of different studies and lack of precision for single hard outcomes compared with a composite outcome. Such inconsistencies among SRs could potentially slow the translation of SRs' results to clinical and public health decision making and suggest the need for a broader methodological and clinical agreement on their design.

AB - Objectives To clarify the impact of multiple (covering the same population, intervention, control, and outcomes) systematic reviews (SRs) on interventions for myocardial infarction (MI). Study Design and Setting Clinical Evidence (BMJ Group) sections and related search strategies regarding MI were used to identify multiple SRs published between 1997 and 2007. Multiple SRs were classified as discordant if they featured conflicting results or interpretation of them. Results Thirty-six SRs (23.5% of 153 on the treatment or prevention of MI) were classified as multiple and grouped in 16 clusters [ie, at least two SRs with the same PICO (population, condition/disease, intervention, control) and at least one common outcome] exploring angioplasty, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, anticoagulants, antiplatelets, β-blockers, and stents. Complete agreement on statistically significant differences between interventions was found in 7 of 10 clusters with a shared composite outcome. Agreement was reduced when single outcomes were considered. Despite substantial variation and limited agreement in reporting of major outcomes, SRs agreed in their conclusions on the superiority of either the intervention or control in 14 of 16 clusters. Sources of minor discrepancies were found in terms of study and outcome selection, subgroup analyses, and interpretation of findings. Conclusion Multiple SRs agreed in their qualitative conclusions but not on reporting and on analyses of hard outcomes. Discordance on significance of treatment effects was due to a combination of variation in design with inclusion of different studies and lack of precision for single hard outcomes compared with a composite outcome. Such inconsistencies among SRs could potentially slow the translation of SRs' results to clinical and public health decision making and suggest the need for a broader methodological and clinical agreement on their design.

KW - Cardiovascular agents

KW - Dissent and disputes

KW - Evidence based medicine

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Myocardial infarction

KW - Policy making

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923634364&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84923634364&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 25533151

AN - SCOPUS:84923634364

VL - 68

SP - 246

EP - 256

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 3

ER -