Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Evidenzbasierte Praxis in den Gesundheitsberufen pp 49–64Cite as

Metaepidemiologie und Qualitätssicherung klinischer Evidenzproduktion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Zusammenfassung

Randomisierte kontrollierte Studien und deren Ergebniszusammenfassung durch systematische Übersichtsarbeiten und Metaanalysen gelten innerhalb des Paradigmas der evidenzbasierten Medizin als Goldstandard zum Wirksamkeitsnachweis klinischer sowie therapeutischer Interventionen. Parallel zum exponentiellen Anstieg publizierter Ergebniszusammenfassungen hat sich auch die Metaanalyse von einer statistischen Technik zu einer Forschungsperspektive weiterentwickelt. Die Notwendigkeit dieser Meta-Forschung ergibt sich aus dem direkten Zusammenhang zwischen der klinischen Relevanz der Ergebnissynthese und der Qualität der darin eingeschlossenen Studien. Das neue Wissenschaftsfeld der Metaepidemiologie stellt quantitative Methoden zur Analyse qualitativer Defizite medizinischer Forschung bereit. Bisherige empirische Ergebnisse metaepidemiologischer Studien deuten eine erhebliche Verzerrung klinischer Evidenz durch methodische Defizite der zugrunde liegenden Einzelstudien an. Der vorliegende Beitrag identifiziert bisher bekannte Meta-Confounder, erläutert die Richtung und das Ausmaß der resultierenden Verzerrung des Behandlungseffekts, thematisiert verschiedene Initiativen und Lösungsansätze zur Qualitätssicherung klinischer Evidenzproduktion und diskutiert abschließend forschungspraktische Implikationen zur Evidenzbasierung der Gesundheitsberufe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Allen D, Harkins K (2005) Too much guidance? Lancet 365: 1768

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anglemyer A, Horvath HT, Bero L (2014) Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4: MR000034

    Google Scholar 

  • Armijo-Olivo S, Fuentes J, Rogers T, Hartling L, Saltaji H, Cummings GG (2013). How should we evaluate the risk of bias of physical therapy trials?: a psychometric and meta-epidemiological approach towards developing guidelines for the design, conduct, and reporting of RCTs in Physical Therapy (PT) area: a study protocol. Syst Rev 2: 88

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Armijo-Olivo S, Cummings GG, Fuentes J, Saltaji H, Ha C, Chisholm A, Pasichnyk D, Rogers T (2014) Identifying items to assess methodological quality in physical therapy trials: a factor analysis. Phys Ther 4: 1272–1284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armijo-Olivo S, Saltaji H, da Costa BR, Fuentes J, Ha C, Cummings GG (2015). What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study. BMJ Open (9): e008562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JP, Wang C, Lau J (2002) Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 87: 2973–2982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bafeta A, Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Ravaud P (2012) Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 44: e813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastian H et al (2010) Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 7: e1000326

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bialy L, Vandermeer B, Lacaze-Masmonteil T, Dryden DM, Hartling L (2014) A meta-epidemiological study to examine the association between bias and treatment effects in neonatal trials. Evid Based Child Health 9: 1052–1059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 89: 454–465. PMID: 12533125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertram L, Tanzi RE (2008). Thirty years of Alzheimer's disease genetics: the implications of systematic meta-analyses. Nat Rev Neurosci : 768–878

    Google Scholar 

  • Blümle A, Antes G, Schumacher M, Just H, von Elm E (2008) Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others. J Med Ethics 4:e20. PMID: 18757621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L (2012) The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev 1: 2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, Howells DW, Ioannidis JP, Oliver S (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 83: 156–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 91: 2457–2465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler J, Hopewell S (2013) Cochrane methods – twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods. Syst Rev 2: 76

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ciani O, Buyse M, Garside R, Pavey T, Stein K, Sterne JA, Taylor RS (2013) Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 46: f457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Gilbody SM, Trikalinos TA, Churchill R, Wahlbeck K, Ioannidis JP (2005) Comparison of large versus smaller randomized trials for mental health-related interventions. Am J Psychiatry 62: 578–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechartres A, Boutron I, Trinquart L, Charles P, Ravaud P (2011) Single-center trials show larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: evidence from a meta– epidemiologic study. Ann Intern Med 55: 39–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Boutron I, Ravaud P (2013) Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 46: f2304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Faber T, Ravaud P (2016) Empirical evaluation of which trial characteristics are associated with treatment effect estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 7: 24–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechartres A, Ravaud P, Atal I, Riveros C, Boutron I (2016) Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study. BMC Med 4: 100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ (2013) Reporting Bias Group. Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias – An Updated Review. PLoS One 8(7): e66844

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dumas-Mallet E, Smith A, Boraud T, Gonon F (2017) Poor replication validity of biomedical association studies reported by newspapers. PLoS One 2(2): e0172650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elm E von, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2007) STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 35: 806–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1992) Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 68: 2420–2425

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Busse JW, Heels-Ansdell D, Montori VM, Akl EA, Bryant DM, Alonso-Coello P, Alonso J, Worster A, Upadhye S, Jaeschke R, Schünemann HJ, Permanyer-Miralda G, Pacheco-Huergo V, Domingo-Salvany A, Wu P, Mills EJ, Guyatt GH (2007) Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 334: 786.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Glasziou P, Moynihan R, Richards T, Godlee F (2013) Too much medicine too little care. BMJ 47: f4247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N (2014) Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 48: g3725

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A (2011) GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 4: 380–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartling L, Hamm MP, Fernandes RM, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B (2014) Quantifying bias in randomized controlled trials in child health: a meta-epidemiological study. PLoS One 9: e88008

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K (2009) Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1: MR000006

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Lau J (2001) Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 86: 821–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis JP (2014) How to make more published research true. PLoS Med 1(10): e1001747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, Schulz KF, Tibshirani R (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 383: 166–175

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 8: e124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis JP (2016) The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. The Milbank quarterly 4: 485–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis JP (2016) Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful. PLoS Med 3(6): e1002049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane RL, Wang J, Garrard J (2007) Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. J Clin Epidemiol 60: 241–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C (2001) Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 35: 982–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschooten F van (2002) Conflicts of interest: Can you believe what you read? Nature 16: 360–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F (1997) Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 37: 536–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6: e1000100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lumbreras B, Parker LA, Porta M, Pollán M, Ioannidis JP, Hernández-Aguado I (2009) Overinterpretation of clinical applicability in molecular diagnostic research. Clin Chem 5: 786–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JP, Al-Shahi Salman R, Chan AW, Glasziou P (2014) Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 83: 101–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007) Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4: e78

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 7: e1000097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, CONSORT Group (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 85: 1987–1991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie du Sert N, Simonsohn U, Wagenmakers E, Ware JJ, Ioannidis JPA (2017) A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav 1: 0021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nüesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Rutjes AW, Bürgi E, Scherer M et al (2009) The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 39: b3244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nüesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Rutjes AW, Tschannen B, Altman DG et al (2010) Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 41:c3515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ochodo EA, de Haan MC, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM (2013) Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of „spin“. Radiology 67: 581–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onishi A, Furukawa TA (2014) Publication bias is underreported in systematic reviews published in high-impact-factor journals: metaepidemiologic study. J Clin Epidemiol 7: 1320–1326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, Green S, Forbes A (2014) Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 10: MR000035

    Google Scholar 

  • Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Clayton G, Sterne JAC, Hröbjartsson A, Savović J (2016) Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies. PLoS ONE 1(7):e0159267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papageorgiou SN (2016) Overview provides insights on the current status and future of meta-epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 7: 11–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson K (1904) Report on Certain Enteric Fever Inoculation Statistics. British Medical Journal 3: 1243–1246

    Google Scholar 

  • Prentice RL (2009) Surrogate and mediating endpoints: current status and future directions. J Natl Cancer Inst 101: 216–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reid IR, Bolland MJ (2013) Observational studies – just telling us what we want to hear or telling us where we need to look? J Bone Miner Res 8: 980–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ressing M, Blettner M, Klug SJ (2009) Systematische Übersichtsarbeiten und Metaanalysen. Dtsch Arztebl Int 106: 456–463

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, Binder H, Schumacher M (2011) Treatment-effect estimates adjusted for small-study effects via a limit meta-analysis. Biostatistics 2: 122–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC (1987) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. New Engl J Med 16: 450–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, Als-Nielsen B, Balk EM, Gluud C, Gluud LL, Ioannidis JP, Schulz KF, Beynon R, Welton NJ, Wood L, Moher D, Deeks JJ, Sterne JA (2012) Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 57: 429–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savović J, Harris RJ, Wood L, Beynon R, Altman D, Als-Nielsen B, Balk EM, Deeks J, Gluud LL, Gluud C, Ioannidis JP, Jűni P, Moher D Pildal J, Schulz KF, Sterne JA (2010) Development of a combined database for meta-epidemiological research. Res Synth Methods 1: 212–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7: 10

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Smith GC, Pell JP (2003) Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 27: 1459–1461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P (2012) Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev 1: 7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sterne JA, Juni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M (2002) Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in „meta-epidemiological” research. Stat Med 1: 1513–1524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (1997) Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ 15: 635–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R (2008) Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 58: 252–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzoulaki I, Siontis KC, Ioannidis JP (2011) Prognostic effect size of cardiovascular biomarkers in datasets from observational studies versus randomised trials: meta-epidemiology study. BMJ 43:e2014019

    Google Scholar 

  • Unverzagt S, Prondzinsky R, Peinemann F (2013) Single-center trials tend to provide larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 6: 1271–1280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbroucke JP (2004) When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet 63: 1728–1731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Jüni P, Altman DG et al (2008) Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 36: 601–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood JA (2007) Methodology for dealing with duplicate study effects in a meta-analysis. Organ res methods 1: 79–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu L, Freeman G, Cowling BJ, Schooling CM (2013) Testosterone therapy and cardiovascular events among men: a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials. BMC Medicine 1: 108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao L, Li Y, Ghosh S, Evans JA, Rzhetsky A (2015) Health ROI as a measure of misalignment of biomedical needs and resources. Nat Biotechnol 3: 807–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young SN (2009) Bias in the research literature and conflict of interest: an issue for publishers, editors, reviewers and authors, and it is not just about the money. J Psychiatry Neurosci 4: 412–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu LM, Chan AW, Hopewell S, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2010) Reporting on covariate adjustment in randomised controlled trials before and after revision of the 2001 CONSORT statement: a literature review. Trials 1: 59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Robertson J, Jones AC, Dieppe PA, Doherty M (2008) The placebo effect and its determinants in osteoarthritis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Ann Rheum Dis 67: 1716–1723

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EUFH, Europäische Fachhochschule Rhein/Erft GmbH, Werftstr. 5, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland

    Robin Haring

Authors
  1. Robin Haring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robin Haring .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. FB Angewandte Gesundheitswissenschaften, E U | F H Europäische Fachhochschule Rhein / Erft GmbH, Rostock, Germany

    Robin Haring

  2. FB Angewandte Gesundheitswissenschaften, E U | F H Europäische Fachhochschule Rhein / Erft GmbH, Rostock, Germany

    Julia Siegmüller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Haring, R. (2018). Metaepidemiologie und Qualitätssicherung klinischer Evidenzproduktion. In: Haring, R., Siegmüller, J. (eds) Evidenzbasierte Praxis in den Gesundheitsberufen. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55377-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55377-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55376-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55377-0

  • eBook Packages: Medicine (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation