Dataset Information

Factors Associated with the Magnitude Of acUpuncture treatment effectS (FAMOUS): a meta-epidemiological study of acupuncture randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify factors and assess to what extent they impact the magnitude of the treatment effect of acupuncture therapies across therapeutic areas.

Data source

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc, between 2015 and 2019.

Study selection

The inclusion criteria were trials with a total number of randomised patients larger than 100, at least one patient-important outcome and one of two sets of comparisons.

Data analysis

The potential independent variables were identified by reviewing relevant literature and consulting with experts. We conducted meta-regression analyses with standardised mean difference (SMD) as effect estimate for the dependent variable. The analyses included univariable meta-regression and multivariable meta-regression using a three-level robust mixed model.

Results

1304 effect estimates from 584 acupuncture randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were analysed. The multivariable analyses contained 15 independent variables . In the multivariable analysis, the following produced larger treatment effects of large magnitude (>0.4): quality of life (difference of adjusted SMDs 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77), or pain (0.48, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69), or function (0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61) vs major events. The following produced larger treatment effects of moderate magnitude (0.2-0.4): single-centred vs multicentred RCTs (0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.66); penetration acupuncture vs non-penetration types of acupuncture (0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.53); non-pain symptoms vs major events (0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.52). The following produced larger treatment effects of small magnitude (<0.2): high vs low frequency treatment sessions (0.19, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.35); pain vs non-pain symptoms (0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.27); unreported vs reported funding (0.12, 95% CI 0 to 0.25).

Conclusion

Patients, clinicians and policy-makers should consider penetrating over non-penetrating acupuncture and more frequent treatment sessions when feasible and acceptable. When designing future acupuncture RCTs, trialists should consider factors that impact acupuncture treatment effects.

SUBMITTER: Gang WJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9438103 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors Associated with the Magnitude Of acUpuncture treatment effectS (FAMOUS): a meta-epidemiological study of acupuncture randomised controlled trials.

Gang Wei-Juan WJ Xiu Wen-Cui WC Shi Lan-Jun LJ Zhou Qi Q Jiao Rui-Min RM Yang Ji-Wei JW Shi Xiao-Shuang XS Sun Xiao-Yue XY Zeng Zhao Z Witt Claudia M CM Thabane Lehana L Song Ping P Yang Long-Hui LH Guyatt Gordon G Jing Xiang-Hong XH Zhang Yu-Qing YQ

BMJ open 20220829 8

<h4>Objective</h4>To identify factors and assess to what extent they impact the magnitude of the treatment effect of acupuncture therapies across therapeutic areas.<h4>Data source</h4>Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc, between 2015 and 2019.<h4>Study selection</h4>The inclusion criteria were trials with a total number of randomised patients larger than 100, at l ...[more]

PMID: 36038176

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo study the impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects, and their variation between trials; differentiating between blinding of patients, healthcare providers, and observers; detection bias and performance bias; and types of outcome (the MetaBLIND study).DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sourceCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2013-14).Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesMeta-analyses with both blinded and non-blinded trials on any topic.Review methodsBlinding status was retrieved from trial publications and authors, and results retrieved automatically from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Bayesian hierarchical models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR), and estimated the increases in heterogeneity between trials, for non-blinded trials (or of unclear status) versus blinded trials. Secondary analyses adjusted for adequacy of concealment of allocation, attrition, and trial size, and explored the association between outcome subjectivity (high, moderate, low) and average bias. An ROR lower than 1 indicated exaggerated effect estimates in trials without blinding.ResultsThe study included 142 meta-analyses (1153 trials). The ROR for lack of blinding of patients was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.61 to 1.34) in 18 meta-analyses with patient reported outcomes, and 0.98 (0.69 to 1.39) in 14 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of healthcare providers was 1.01 (0.84 to 1.19) in 29 meta-analyses with healthcare provider decision outcomes (eg, readmissions), and 0.97 (0.64 to 1.45) in 13 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded patients or observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of observers was 1.01 (0.86 to 1.18) in 46 meta-analyses with subjective observer reported outcomes, with no clear impact of degree of subjectivity. Information was insufficient to determine whether lack of blinding was associated with increased heterogeneity between trials. The ROR for trials not reported as double blind versus those that were double blind was 1.02 (0.90 to 1.13) in 74 meta-analyses.ConclusionNo evidence was found for an average difference in estimated treatment effect between trials with and without blinded patients, healthcare providers, or outcome assessors. These results could reflect that blinding is less important than often believed or meta-epidemiological study limitations, such as residual confounding or imprecision. At this stage, replication of this study is suggested and blinding should remain a methodological safeguard in trials.

Project description:BackgroundInstruments to critically appraise randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are based on evidence from meta-epidemiological studies. We aim to conduct a meta-epidemiological study on the average bias associated with reported methodological trial characteristics such as random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and compliance of RCTs in nutrition research.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, for systematic reviews of RCTs, published between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. We combined the estimates of the average bias (e.g. ratio of risk ratios [RRR] or differences in standardised mean differences) in meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate the potential differences among the RCTs with low versus high/unclear risk of bias with respect to the different types of interventions (e.g. micronutrients, fatty acids, dietary approach), outcomes (e.g. mortality, pregnancy outcomes), and type of outcome (objective, subjective). Heterogeneity was assessed through I2 and τ2, and prediction intervals were calculated.ResultsWe included 27 Cochrane nutrition reviews with 77 meta-analyses (n = 927 RCTs). The available evidence suggests that intervention effect estimates may not be exaggerated in RCTs with high/unclear risk of bias (versus low) judgement for sequence generation (RRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; I2 = 28%; τ2 = 0.002), allocation concealment (RRR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; I2 = 27%; τ2 = 0.001), blinding of participants and personnel (RRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00; I2 = 23%; τ2 = 0), selective reporting (RRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02; I2 = 24%; τ2 = 0), and compliance (RRR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; τ2 = 0). Intervention effect estimates seemed to be exaggerated in RCTs with a high/unclear risk of bias judgement for blinding of outcome assessment (RRR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94; I2 = 26%; τ2 = 0.03), which was predominately driven by subjective outcomes, and incomplete outcome data (RRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97; I2 = 22%; τ2 = 0.001). For continuous outcomes, no differences were observed, except for selective reporting.ConclusionsOn average, most characteristics of nutrition RCTs may not exaggerate intervention effect estimates, but the average bias appears to be greatest in trials of subjective outcomes. Replication of this study is suggested in this field to keep this conclusion updated.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough interest in including non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is growing, estimates of effectiveness obtained from NRSIs are vulnerable to greater bias than RCTs. The objectives of this study are to: (1) explore how NRSIs can be integrated into a meta-analysis of RCTs; (2) assess concordance of the evidence from non-randomised and randomised trials and explore factors associated with agreement; and (3) investigate the impact on estimates of pooled bodies of evidence when NRSIs are included.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic survey of 210 systematic reviews that include both RCTs and NRSIs, published from 2017 to 2022. We will randomly select reviews, stratified in a 1:1 ratio by Core vs non-Core clinical journals, as defined by the National Library of Medicine. Teams of paired reviewers will independently determine eligibility and abstract data using standardised, pilot-tested forms. The concordance of the evidence will be assessed by exploring agreement in the relative effect reported by NRSIs and RCT addressing the same clinical question, defined as similarity of the population, intervention/exposure, control and outcomes. We will conduct univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine the association of prespecified study characteristics with agreement in the estimates between NRSIs and RCTs. We will calculate the ratio of the relative effect estimate from NRSIs over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% CI. We will use a bias-corrected meta-analysis model to investigate the influence on pooled estimates when NRSIs are included in the evidence synthesis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and condensed summaries for clinicians, health policymakers and guideline developers regarding the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of meta-analysis that integrate RCTs and NRSIs.

Project description:Objective To examine whether a very large effect (VLE; defined as a relative risk of ≤0.2 or ≥5) in a randomised trial could be an empirical marker that subsequent trials are unnecessary.Design Meta-epidemiological assessment of existing published data on randomised trials.Data sources Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2010, issue 7) with data on subsequent large trials updated to 2015, issue 12.Eligibility criteria All binary outcome forest plots were selected, which contained an index randomised trial with a VLE that was nominally statistically significant (P<0.05), included a subsequent large randomised trial (≥200 events and ≥200 non-events) for validation of the effect, assessed a primary outcome of the review, and was not a subgroup or sensitivity analysis.Results Of 3082 reviews yielding 85 002 forest plots, only 44 (0.05%) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Index trials were generally small, with a median sample of 99 (median 14 events). Few index trials were rated at low risk of bias (9 of 44; 20%). The relative risk was closer to the null in the subsequent large trials in 43 of 44 cases. Subsequent large trial data failed to find a statistically significant (P<0.05) effect in the same direction in 19 cases (43%, 95% confidence interval 29% to 58%). Even when the subsequent large trials did find a significant effect in the same direction, the additional primary outcomes in most of these trials would have to be considered before deciding in favour of using the intervention. Subsequent large trial data found a statistically significant effect in the same direction in 19 of 21 cases when the index trial also had a value of P<0.001.Conclusions The frequency of VLEs followed by a large trial is vanishingly small, and where they occur they do not appear to be a reliable marker for a benefit that is reproducible and directly actionable. An empirical rule using a VLE in a randomised controlled trial as a marker that further trials are unnecessary would be neither practical nor useful. Caution should be taken when interpreting small studies with very large treatment effects.

Dataset Information

Factors Associated with the Magnitude Of acUpuncture treatment effectS (FAMOUS): a meta-epidemiological study of acupuncture randomised controlled trials.

Objective

Data source

Study selection

Data analysis

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Factors Associated with the Magnitude Of acUpuncture treatment effectS (FAMOUS): a meta-epidemiological study of acupuncture randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets