Increased risk of severe infections in non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with pemetrexed: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Validity of data extraction in evidence synthesis practice of adverse events: reproducibility study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the validity of data extraction in systematic reviews of adverse events, the effect of data extraction errors on the results, and to develop a classification framework for data extraction errors to support further methodological research.

DESIGN

Reproducibility study.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed was searched for eligible systematic reviews published between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2020. Metadata from the randomised controlled trials were extracted from the systematic reviews by four authors. The original data sources (eg, full text and ClinicalTrials.gov) were then referred to by the same authors to reproduce the data used in these meta-analyses.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Systematic reviews were included when based on randomised controlled trials for healthcare interventions that reported safety as the exclusive outcome, with at least one pair meta-analysis that included five or more randomised controlled trials and with a 2×2 table of data for event counts and sample sizes in intervention and control arms available for each trial in the meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was data extraction errors summarised at three levels: study level, meta-analysis level, and systematic review level. The potential effect of such errors on the results was further investigated.

RESULTS

201 systematic reviews and 829 pairwise meta-analyses involving 10 386 randomised controlled trials were included. Data extraction could not be reproduced in 1762 (17.0%) of 10 386 trials. In 554 (66.8%) of 829 meta-analyses, at least one randomised controlled trial had data extraction errors; 171 (85.1%) of 201 systematic reviews had at least one meta-analysis with data extraction errors. The most common types of data extraction errors were numerical errors (49.2%, 867/1762) and ambiguous errors (29.9%, 526/1762), mainly caused by ambiguous definitions of the outcomes. These categories were followed by three others: zero assumption errors, misidentification, and mismatching errors. The impact of these errors were analysed on 288 meta-analyses. Data extraction errors led to 10 (3.5%) of 288 meta-analyses changing the direction of the effect and 19 (6.6%) of 288 meta-analyses changing the significance of the P value. Meta-analyses that had two or more different types of errors were more susceptible to these changes than those with only one type of error (for moderate changes, 11 (28.2%) of 39 v 26 (10.4%) 249, P=0.002; for large changes, 5 (12.8%) of 39 v 8 (3.2%) of 249, P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviews of adverse events potentially have serious issues in terms of the reproducibility of the data extraction, and these errors can mislead the conclusions. Implementation guidelines are urgently required to help authors of future systematic reviews improve the validity of data extraction.

Bronchial lavage under fiberoptic bronchoscopy in the treatment of severe pulmonary infection

Objective:

To investigate the clinical efficacy of bronchial lavage under fiberoptic bronchoscopy in the treatment of severe pulmonary infection.

Methods:

One hundred forty eight patients with severe pulmonary infection who were admitted to our hospital from October 2016 to December 2017 were included in this study. According to the random number table method, they were divided into a control group and an observation group with 79 patients each. The control group was given conventional treatment, while the observation group was given bronchoalveolar lavage with fiberoptic bronchoscopy on the basis of the treatment in the control group. The clinical efficacy of the two groups was compared, the duration of mechanical ventilation, antibiotic use and symptoms improvement of the two groups were recorded, and the respiratory mechanics parameters, serum procalcitonin (PCT) and transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) level were measured before and after treatment.

Results:

The duration of mechanical ventilation, antibiotic use, respiratory failure correction, body temperature decline and white blood cell recovery in the observation group were significantly shorter than those in the control group (P<0.05). The total efficacy of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group (92.4% vs. 74.7%). The respiratory mechanics parameters of the two groups after treatment were higher than those before treatment (P<0.05) and the increase of the observation group was more obvious than that of the control group (P<0.05). The serum PCT and TGF-β levels of the two groups after treatment were lower than those before treatment (P<0.05), and the decrease level in the observation group was more obvious (P<0.05).

Conclusion:

Bronchial lavage under fiberoptic bronchoscopy can improve the clinical efficacy, accelerate the improvement of clinical symptoms and respiratory mechanics parameters, significantly reduce the PCT and TGF-β levels, and promote the rapid recovery of patients in the treatment of severe pulmonary infection.