Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22122831›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2011

European Project on OSteoArthritis (EPOSA): methodological challenges in harmonization of existing data from five European population-based cohorts on aging.

Laura A Schaap, Geeske Mee Peeters, Elaine M Dennison, Sabina Zambon, Thorsten Nikolaus, Mercedes Sanchez-Martinez, Estella Musacchio, Natasja M van Schoor, Dorly Jh Deeg, EPOSA research group

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. A review of harmonization methods for studying dietary patterns.Smart health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Laura A SchaapDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. l.schaap@vumc.nl
Geeske Mee Peeters
Elaine M Dennison
Sabina Zambon
Thorsten Nikolaus
Mercedes Sanchez-Martinez
Estella Musacchio
Natasja M van Schoor
Dorly Jh Deeg
EPOSA research group

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe European Project on OSteoArthritis (EPOSA), here presented for the first time, is a collaborative study involving five European cohort studies on aging. This project focuses on the personal and societal burden and its determinants of osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of the current report is to describe the purpose of the project, the post harmonization of the cross-national data and methodological challenges related to the harmonization process

methodsThe study includes data from cohort studies in five European countries (Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom) on older community-dwelling persons aged ≥ 59 years. The study design and main characteristics of the five cohort studies are described. Post harmonization algorithms are developed by finding a "common denominator" to merge the datasets and weights are calculated to adjust for differences in age and sex distribution across the datasets.

resultsA harmonized database was developed, consisting of merged data from all participating countries. In total, 10107 persons are included in the harmonized dataset with a mean age of 72.8 years (SD 6.1). The female/male ratio is 53.3/46.7%. Some variables were difficult to harmonize due to differences in wording and categories, differences in classifications and absence of data in some countries. The post harmonization algorithms are described in detail in harmonization guidelines attached to this paper.

conclusionsThere was little evidence of agreement on the use of several core data collection instruments, in particular on the measurement of OA. The heterogeneity of OA definitions hampers comparing prevalence rates of OA, but other research questions can be investigated using high quality harmonized data. By publishing the harmonization guidelines, insight is given into (the interpretation of) all post harmonized data of the EPOSA study.

Indexed as

AgingAgedAge DistributionAlgorithmsCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualEuropeFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritisSex Distribution

Identifiers

PMID22122831
PMCPMC3257208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.