ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Variability of relative treatment effect among populations with low, moderate and high control group event rates: a meta-epidemiological study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current practice in guideline development is to use the control group event rate (CR) as a surrogate of baseline risk and to assume portability of the relative treatment effect across populations with low, moderate and high baseline risk. We sought to emulate this practice in a very large sample of meta-analyses.
methodsWe retrieved data from all meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2003-2020) that evaluated a binary outcome, reported 2 × 2 data for each individual study and included at least 4 studies. We excluded studies with no events. We conducted meta-analyses with odds ratios and relative risks and performed subgroup analyses based on tertiles of CR. In sensitivity analyses, we evaluated the use of total event rate (TR) instead of CR and using quartiles instead of tertiles.
resultsThe analysis included 2,531 systematic reviews (27,692 meta-analyses, 226,975 studies, 25,669,783 patients).The percentages of meta-analyses with statistically significant interaction (P < 0.05) based on CR tertile or quartile ranged 12-18% across various sensitivity analyses. This percentage increased as the number of studies or range of CR per meta-analysis increased, reflecting increased power of the subgroup test. The percentages of meta-analyses with statistically significant interaction (P < 0.05) with TR quantiles were lower than those with CR but remained higher than expected by chance.
conclusionThis analysis suggests that when CR or TR are used as surrogates for baseline risk, relative treatment effects may not be portable across populations with varying baseline risks in many meta-analyses. Categroization of the continuous CR variable and not addressing measurement error limit inferences from such analyses and imply that CR is an undesirable source for baseline risk. Guideline developers and decision-makers should be provided with relative and absolute treatment effects that are conditioned on the baseline risk or derived from studies with similar baseline risk to their target populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.