Pharmacological research · 2020
Misleading meta-analyses of observational studies may generate unjustified alarms: The case of medications for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Biffi Annalisa, Rea Federico, Locatelli Anna, Cetin Irene, Filippelli Amelia, Corrao Giovanni
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Because observational studies often use imperfect measurements, results are prone to misclassification errors. We used as a motivating example the possible teratogenic risks of antiemetic agents in pregnancy since a large observational study recently showed that first-trimester exposure to doxylamine-pyridoxine was associated with significantly increased risk of congenital malformations as a whole, as well as central nervous system defects, and previous observational studies did not show such associations. A meta-analysis on this issue was carried out with the aim to illustrate how differential exposure and outcome misclassifications may lead to uncertain conclusions.
METHODS: Medline, searched to October 2019 for full text papers in English. Summary Odds Ratios (ORs) with confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effect models. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for evaluating the extension of differential misclassification required to account for the exposure-outcome association.
RESULTS: Summary ORs were 1.02 (95 % CI, 0.92-1.15), 0.99 (0.82-1.19) and 1.25 (1.08-1.44) for overall congenital, cardiocirculatory, and central nervous system malformations respectively. By assuming exposure and outcome bias factor respectively of 0.95 (i.e., newborns with congenital defects had exposure specificity 5% lower than healthy newborns) and 1.12 (i.e., exposed newborns had outcome sensitivity 12 % higher than unexposed newborns), summary OR of central nervous system defects became 1.13 (95 % CI, 0.99-1.29) and 1.17 (95 % CI, 0.99-1.38).
CONCLUSION: Observational investigations and meta-analyses of observational studies need cautious interpretations. Their susceptibility to several, often sneaky, sources of bias should be carefully evaluated.
METHODS: Medline, searched to October 2019 for full text papers in English. Summary Odds Ratios (ORs) with confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effect models. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for evaluating the extension of differential misclassification required to account for the exposure-outcome association.
RESULTS: Summary ORs were 1.02 (95 % CI, 0.92-1.15), 0.99 (0.82-1.19) and 1.25 (1.08-1.44) for overall congenital, cardiocirculatory, and central nervous system malformations respectively. By assuming exposure and outcome bias factor respectively of 0.95 (i.e., newborns with congenital defects had exposure specificity 5% lower than healthy newborns) and 1.12 (i.e., exposed newborns had outcome sensitivity 12 % higher than unexposed newborns), summary OR of central nervous system defects became 1.13 (95 % CI, 0.99-1.29) and 1.17 (95 % CI, 0.99-1.38).
CONCLUSION: Observational investigations and meta-analyses of observational studies need cautious interpretations. Their susceptibility to several, often sneaky, sources of bias should be carefully evaluated.