Retrieval of Individual Participant Data for Exercise Meta-Analyses May Not Be Worth the Time and Effort

Depression screening tool accuracy individual participant data meta-analyses: data contribution was associated with multiple factors

OBJECTIVES

To examine the proportion of eligible primary studies that contributed data, study characteristics associated with data contribution, and reasons for noncontribution using diagnostic test accuracy Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis (IPDMA) data sets from the DEPRESsion Screening Data project.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We reviewed data set contributions from four IPDMAs. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to evaluate study factors associated with data contribution.

RESULTS

Of 456 eligible studies from four included IPDMAs, 295 (65%) contributed data. More recent year of publication and higher journal impact factor were associated with greater odds of data contribution. Studies conducted in Europe (excluding the United Kingdom), Oceania, Canada, the Middle East, Africa, and Central or South America (reference = the United States), that have recruitment from inpatient care or nonmedical settings (reference = outpatient), that reported screening accuracy results, or that drew negative conclusions (reference = positive conclusions) were more likely to contribute data. Studies of the Geriatric Depression Scale (reference = the Patient Health Questionnaire) or lacking funding information were negatively associated with data contribution. Over 80% of noncontributions were due to authors being unreachable or data being unavailable.

CONCLUSION

The study identified factors associated with data contribution that may support future research to promote data contribution to IPDMAs.

Exercise and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Children and Adolescents With Obesity: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of exercise on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in children and adolescents with obesity. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise ≥4 weeks in children and adolescents with obesity were included if one or more CVD risk factors were included as an outcome. Studies were retrieved by searching 7 electronic databases, cross-referencing, and expert review. Data were pooled using the inverse-variance heterogeneity (IVhet) model and strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. Thirty-nine studies representing 1548 participants (847 exercise, 701 control) met the inclusion criteria. Aerobic exercise improved 10 of 12 (83.3%) outcomes (P < .05 for all) while combined aerobic and strength training improved 5 of 8 (62.5%) outcomes (P < .05 for all). The strength of evidence ranged from "very low" to "moderate." It was concluded that aerobic exercise, as well as combined aerobic and strength training, is associated with improvements in multiple CVD risk factors among children and adolescents with obesity. However, the generally low strength of evidence suggests a need for future well-designed and conducted RCTs on the effects of exercise, especially strength training, in children and adolescents with obesity.

Walking and resting blood pressure: An inter-individual response difference meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

While walking is associated with reductions in resting SBP and DBP, a lack of true IIRD exists, suggesting that factors other than training response variation (random variation, physiological responses associated with behavioral changes that are not the result of walking) are responsible for the observed variation in resting SBP and DBP.

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in nutrition research

There exists an ever-increasing number of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, in the field of nutrition. Concomitant with this increase is the increased use of such to guide future research as well as both practice and policy-based decisions. Given this increased production and consumption, a need exists to educate both producers and consumers of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, on how to conduct and evaluate high-quality reviews of this nature in nutrition. The purpose of this paper is to try and address this gap. In the present manuscript, the different types of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, are described as well as the description of the major elements, including methodology and interpretation, with a focus on nutrition. It is hoped that this non-technical information will be helpful to producers, reviewers and consumers of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, in the field of nutrition.

Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMA): data contribution was associated with trial corresponding author country, publication year, and journal impact factor

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to determine the proportion of eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that contributed data to individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) and explore associated factors.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

IPDMAs with ≥10 eligible RCTs were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane May 1, 2015 to February 13, 2017. Mixed-effect logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with data contribution.

RESULTS

Of 774 eligible RCTs from 35 included IPDMAs, 517 (67%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 63%-70%) contributed data. Compared to RCTs from journals with low-impact factors (0-2.4), RCTs from journals with higher impact factors were more likely to contribute data: impact factor 5.0-9.9, odds ratio [OR] 2.6, 95% CI: 1.37-4.86; impact factor: 10.0-19.9, OR: 5.7, 95% CI: 3.0-10.8; impact factor >20.0, OR: 4.6, 95% CI: 1.9-11.4. RCTs from the United Kingdom were more likely to contribute data than those from the United States (reference; OR: 2.4, 95% CI, 1.3-4.6). There was an increase in OR per publication year (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.09).

CONCLUSION

The country where RCTs are conducted, impact factor of the journal where RCTs are published, and RCT publication year were associated with data contribution in IPDMAs with ≥10 eligible RCTs.

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in rheumatology: a gentle introduction for clinicians

Given the plethora of studies today on the same topic, clinicians in rheumatology as well as others increasingly rely on systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, to aid in their evidence-based decision-making. However, given time constraints, staying up-to-date on current methods for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as interpreting the results of these reviews for application in clinical practice can be challenging. The purpose of this paper is to try and address this gap. In this paper, a description of the different types of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is provided as well as a description of the major elements, including methodology and interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Included is a broad, five-question checklist to aid clinicians in rheumatology for making decisions about the utility of a systematic review. It is the hopes that this paper will aid clinicians in rheumatology as well as other consumers of systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the information necessary for judging the utility of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in their own work.