Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T14:00:21.900Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

THE INFLUENCE OF METHODOLOGIC QUALITY ON THE CONCLUSION OF A LANDMARK META-ANALYSIS ON THROMBOLYTIC THERAPY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2002

Arianne P. Verhagen
Affiliation:
Maastricht University and Erasmus University Rotterdam
Henrica C. W. de Vet
Affiliation:
Maastricht University and Vrije Universiteit
Frank Vermeer
Affiliation:
Maastricht University Hospital
Jos W. M. G. Widdershoven
Affiliation:
Twee Steden Hospital
Robert A. de Bie
Affiliation:
Maastricht University
Alphons G. H. Kessels
Affiliation:
Maastricht University and Maastricht University Hospital
Maarten Boers
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit
Piet A. van den Brandt
Affiliation:
Maastricht University

Abstract

Objective: We studied the influence of the methodologic quality of individual trials on the outcome of a landmark meta-analysis on thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. From each study we extracted the number of patients in both groups who died in hospital or during follow-up. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Delphi list. We first recalculated pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), on the studies found and compared them with the original results of Yusuf et al. Next we incorporated the results of quality assessment in five different ways in the calculation of the pooled ORs: a) component analysis; b) visual plot; c) quality score as a threshold score; d) quality score as a weighting factor; and e) cumulative pooling.

Results and Conclusion: No correlation between quality scores and ORs was found. Studies with a proper description of the different quality components provided an estimate close to the true treatment effect. No major differences were found between the results of the five different methods of incorporating the quality scores into the final conclusion.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)