Insufficient information size and potentially false results in orthodontic meta-analyses using trial sequential analysis

Author:

Mheissen Samer1ORCID,Aldandan Mays2,Khan Haris3ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Syrian Board in Orthodontics, Private Practice , Damascus , Syria

2. Private Practice , Dara , Syria

3. Department of Orthodontics, CMH Institute of Dentistry Lahore, National University of Medical Sciences , Punjab , Pakistan

Abstract

Abstract Background Meta-analysis (MA) is a common mathematical method used in systematic reviews (SRs) to gather data from different studies. MA may result in overestimation or underestimation of the effect due to systematic and random errors. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) has been used to overcome the limitations of conventional MA. The objective of this study was to re-evaluate the findings of orthodontic MAs using TSA to investigate the conclusiveness of the effect and to estimate the required information size (IS). Methods Orthodontic SRs with MA published between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2022 in the leading orthodontic journals were sourced. Data from arm-level MAs were extracted and re-entered in TSA software. Results A total of 180 papers were assessed against the inclusion criteria. Finally, 50 SRs with MAs were included. TSA found that almost half of the MAs with significant results demonstrated firm evidence of effect. While 38% of the significant MAs confirmed potentially spurious evidence of effect. In contrast, only one MA with insignificant findings showed a lack of effect. Furthermore, a larger number of patients were needed when the evidence of the effect was absent. Conclusions TSA revealed that many orthodontic MAs have potentially false-positive results and have insufficient IS.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Orthodontics

Reference20 articles.

1. Evidence-based orthodontics: Too many systematic reviews, too few trials;Papageorgiou,2019

2. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials;Schulz,1995

3. The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analysis--a simulation study;Thorlund,2011

4. The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews;Turner,2013

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3