Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2014

01-04-2014 | Multimorbidity Symposium

Addressing Multimorbidity in Evidence Integration and Synthesis

Authors: Thomas A. Trikalinos, MD, Jodi B. Segal, MD, MPH, Cynthia M. Boyd, MD, MPH

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 4/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

To minimize bias, clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for managing patients with multiple conditions should be informed by well-planned syntheses of the totality of the relevant evidence by means of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, deficiencies along the entire evidentiary pathway hinder the development of evidence-based CPGs. Published reports of trials and observational studies often do not provide usable data on treatment effect heterogeneity, perhaps because their design, analysis and presentation is seldom geared towards informing on how multimorbidity modifies the effect of treatments. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses inherit all the limitations of their building blocks and introduce additional of their own, including selection biases at the level of the included studies, ecological biases, and analytical challenges. To generate recommendations to help negotiate some of the challenges in synthesizing the primary literature, so that the results of the evidence synthesis is applicable to the care of those with multiple conditions. Informal group process. We have built upon established general guidance, and provide additional recommendations specific to systematic reviews that could improve the CPGs for multimorbid patients. We suggest that following the additional recommendations is good practice, but acknowledge that not all proposed recommendations are of equal importance, validity and feasibility, and that further work is needed to test and refine the recommendations.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lugtenberg M, Burgers JS, Clancy C, Westert GP, Schneider EC. Current guidelines have limited applicability to patients with comorbid conditions: a systematic analysis of evidence-based guidelines. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(10):e25987.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Lugtenberg M, Burgers JS, Clancy C, Westert GP, Schneider EC. Current guidelines have limited applicability to patients with comorbid conditions: a systematic analysis of evidence-based guidelines. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(10):e25987.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Fortin M, Contant E, Savard C, Hudon C, Poitras ME, Almirall J. Canadian guidelines for clinical practice: an analysis of their quality and relevance to the care of adults with comorbidity. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:74.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Fortin M, Contant E, Savard C, Hudon C, Poitras ME, Almirall J. Canadian guidelines for clinical practice: an analysis of their quality and relevance to the care of adults with comorbidity. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:74.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294(6):716–24.CrossRef Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294(6):716–24.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2007;297(11):1233–40.CrossRef Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2007;297(11):1233–40.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Zulman DM, Sussman JB, Chen X, Cigolle CT, Blaum CS, Hayward RA. Examining the evidence: a systematic review of the inclusion and analysis of older adults in randomized controlled trials. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(7):783–90.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Zulman DM, Sussman JB, Chen X, Cigolle CT, Blaum CS, Hayward RA. Examining the evidence: a systematic review of the inclusion and analysis of older adults in randomized controlled trials. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(7):783–90.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2007;298(10):1209–12.CrossRef Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2007;298(10):1209–12.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Boyd CM, Vollenweider D, Puhan MA. Informing evidence-based decision-making for patients with comorbidity: availability of necessary information in clinical trials for chronic diseases. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):e41601.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Boyd CM, Vollenweider D, Puhan MA. Informing evidence-based decision-making for patients with comorbidity: availability of necessary information in clinical trials for chronic diseases. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(8):e41601.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Uhlig K, Leff B, Kent DM, Dy S, Brunnhuber K, Burgers JS, Greenfield S, Guyatt G, High K, Leipzig R, Mulrow C, Schmader K, Schunemann H, Walter LC, Woodcock J, Boyd CM. A framework for crafting clinical practice guidelines that are relevant to the care and management of people with multimorbidity. J Gen Intern Med. 2013. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2659-y. Uhlig K, Leff B, Kent DM, Dy S, Brunnhuber K, Burgers JS, Greenfield S, Guyatt G, High K, Leipzig R, Mulrow C, Schmader K, Schunemann H, Walter LC, Woodcock J, Boyd CM. A framework for crafting clinical practice guidelines that are relevant to the care and management of people with multimorbidity. J Gen Intern Med. 2013. doi: 10.​1007/​s11606-013-2659-y.
10.
go back to reference Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, eds. Committee on standards for systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research board on health care services. Finding what works in health care, standards for systematic reviews. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, The National Academies Press. www.nap.edu Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, eds. Committee on standards for systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research board on health care services. Finding what works in health care, standards for systematic reviews. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, The National Academies Press. www.​nap.​edu
11.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.​cochrane-handbook.​org.
12.
go back to reference Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S, Sharp BA. AHRQ series paper 1: comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):481–3.PubMedCrossRef Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S, Sharp BA. AHRQ series paper 1: comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):481–3.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Helfand M, Balshem H. AHRQ series paper 2: principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):484–90.PubMedCrossRef Helfand M, Balshem H. AHRQ series paper 2: principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):484–90.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):491–501.PubMedCrossRef Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):491–501.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):502–12.PubMedCrossRef Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):502–12.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions–agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):513–23.PubMedCrossRef Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions–agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):513–23.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Relevo R, Balshem H. Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1168–77.PubMedCrossRef Relevo R, Balshem H. Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1168–77.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Tsertsvadze A, Maglione M, Chou R, et al. Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: current efforts in AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1208–15.PubMedCrossRef Tsertsvadze A, Maglione M, Chou R, et al. Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: current efforts in AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1208–15.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1187–97.PubMedCrossRef Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1187–97.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Dissemination CfRa. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, UK: University of York; 2009. Dissemination CfRa. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, UK: University of York; 2009.
21.
go back to reference Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, eds. Committee on standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines board on health care services. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies the National Academies Press. www.nap.edu Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, eds. Committee on standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines board on health care services. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies the National Academies Press. www.​nap.​edu
22.
go back to reference Steinberg KK, Smith SJ, Stroup DF, et al. Comparison of effect estimates from a meta-analysis of summary data from published studies and from a meta-analysis using individual patient data for ovarian cancer studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145(10):917–25.PubMedCrossRef Steinberg KK, Smith SJ, Stroup DF, et al. Comparison of effect estimates from a meta-analysis of summary data from published studies and from a meta-analysis using individual patient data for ovarian cancer studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145(10):917–25.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):76–97.PubMedCrossRef Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):76–97.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380–7.PubMedCrossRef Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380–7.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Vollenweider D, Boyd CM, Puhan MA. High prevalence of potential biases threatens the interpretation of trials in patients with chronic disease. BMC Med. 2011;9:73.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Vollenweider D, Boyd CM, Puhan MA. High prevalence of potential biases threatens the interpretation of trials in patients with chronic disease. BMC Med. 2011;9:73.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):395–400.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):395–400.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Guiding principles for the care of older adults with multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians: American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity. J Am Geriatr Soc. Oct 2012;60(10):E1-E25. Guiding principles for the care of older adults with multimorbidity: an approach for clinicians: American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on the Care of Older Adults with Multimorbidity. J Am Geriatr Soc. Oct 2012;60(10):E1-E25.
28.
go back to reference Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA Focused Update of the Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Updating the 2007 Guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011;123(18):2022–60.PubMedCrossRef Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA Focused Update of the Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Updating the 2007 Guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011;123(18):2022–60.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Dahabreh IJ, Sheldrick RC, Paulus JK, et al. Do observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? A systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(15):1893–901.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Dahabreh IJ, Sheldrick RC, Paulus JK, et al. Do observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? A systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(15):1893–901.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AM. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(34):1–154.PubMed MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AM. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(34):1–154.PubMed
31.
go back to reference Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1887–92.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1887–92.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1878–86.PubMedCrossRef Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1878–86.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Byar DP. Why data bases should not replace randomized clinical trials. Biometrics. 1980;36(2):337–42.PubMedCrossRef Byar DP. Why data bases should not replace randomized clinical trials. Biometrics. 1980;36(2):337–42.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.CrossRef Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Gluud LL, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Woods L, Harris R, Sterne JA. Correction: reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(3):219.PubMedCrossRef Gluud LL, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Woods L, Harris R, Sterne JA. Correction: reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(3):219.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Moja LP, Telaro E, D’Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005;330(7499):1053.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Moja LP, Telaro E, D’Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005;330(7499):1053.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(11):982–9.PubMedCrossRef Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(11):982–9.PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352(9128):609–13.PubMedCrossRef Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352(9128):609–13.PubMedCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273(5):408–12.CrossRef Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273(5):408–12.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Gabler NB, Duan N, Liao D, Elmore JG, Ganiats TG, Kravitz RL. Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge? Trials. 2009;10:43.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Gabler NB, Duan N, Liao D, Elmore JG, Ganiats TG, Kravitz RL. Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge? Trials. 2009;10:43.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.PubMedCrossRef Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.PubMedCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in healthcare. Meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2008. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in healthcare. Meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2008.
44.
go back to reference Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage; 2009. Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage; 2009.
45.
go back to reference Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Treating individuals 4: can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Lancet. 2005;365(9456):341–6.PubMedCrossRef Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Treating individuals 4: can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Lancet. 2005;365(9456):341–6.PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet. 1998;351(9096):123–7.PubMedCrossRef Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet. 1998;351(9096):123–7.PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Berlin JA. Invited commentary: benefits of heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;142(4):383–7.PubMed Berlin JA. Invited commentary: benefits of heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;142(4):383–7.PubMed
49.
go back to reference Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–708.PubMedCrossRef Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18(20):2693–708.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Schmid CH, Stark PC, Berlin JA, Landais P, Lau J. Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(7):683–97.PubMedCrossRef Schmid CH, Stark PC, Berlin JA, Landais P, Lau J. Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(7):683–97.PubMedCrossRef
52.
go back to reference Trikalinos TA, Olkin I. A method for the meta-analysis of mutually exclusive binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2008;27(21):4279–300.PubMedCrossRef Trikalinos TA, Olkin I. A method for the meta-analysis of mutually exclusive binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2008;27(21):4279–300.PubMedCrossRef
53.
go back to reference Kirkham JJ, Riley RD, Williamson PR. A multivariate meta-analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews. Stat Med. 2012;31(20):2179–95.PubMedCrossRef Kirkham JJ, Riley RD, Williamson PR. A multivariate meta-analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews. Stat Med. 2012;31(20):2179–95.PubMedCrossRef
55.
go back to reference Jackson D, Riley R, White IR. Multivariate meta-analysis: Potential and promise. Stat Med. 2011;30(20):2481–98. Jackson D, Riley R, White IR. Multivariate meta-analysis: Potential and promise. Stat Med. 2011;30(20):2481–98.
56.
go back to reference Riley RD, Thompson JR, Abrams KR. An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown. Biostatistics. 2008;9(1):172–86.PubMedCrossRef Riley RD, Thompson JR, Abrams KR. An alternative model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis when the within-study correlations are unknown. Biostatistics. 2008;9(1):172–86.PubMedCrossRef
57.
go back to reference Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, Antczak-Bouckoms A, Mosteller F, Colditz GA. Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes by regression with random effects. Stat Med. 1998;17(22):2537–50.PubMedCrossRef Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, Antczak-Bouckoms A, Mosteller F, Colditz GA. Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes by regression with random effects. Stat Med. 1998;17(22):2537–50.PubMedCrossRef
58.
go back to reference Trikalinos TA, Olkin I. Meta-analysis of effect sizes reported at multiple time points: a multivariate approach. Clin Trials. 2012;9(5):610–20. Trikalinos TA, Olkin I. Meta-analysis of effect sizes reported at multiple time points: a multivariate approach. Clin Trials. 2012;9(5):610–20.
59.
go back to reference Lu G, Ades AE, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Briggs AH, Caldwell DM. Meta-analysis of mixed treatment comparisons at multiple follow-up times. Stat Med. 2007;26(20):3681–99.PubMedCrossRef Lu G, Ades AE, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Briggs AH, Caldwell DM. Meta-analysis of mixed treatment comparisons at multiple follow-up times. Stat Med. 2007;26(20):3681–99.PubMedCrossRef
60.
go back to reference Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313–24.PubMedCrossRef Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21(16):2313–24.PubMedCrossRef
61.
go back to reference Cipriani A, Barbui C, Rizzo C, Salanti G. What is a multiple treatments meta-analysis? Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2012;21(2):151–3.PubMedCrossRef Cipriani A, Barbui C, Rizzo C, Salanti G. What is a multiple treatments meta-analysis? Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2012;21(2):151–3.PubMedCrossRef
62.
go back to reference Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;14(4):429–37.CrossRef Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;14(4):429–37.CrossRef
63.
go back to reference Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;14(4):417–28.CrossRef Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;14(4):417–28.CrossRef
64.
go back to reference Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat in Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24.CrossRef Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat in Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24.CrossRef
65.
go back to reference Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):80–97.CrossRef Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):80–97.CrossRef
66.
go back to reference Jansen JP. Network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate level data. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):177–90.CrossRef Jansen JP. Network meta-analysis of individual and aggregate level data. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):177–90.CrossRef
67.
go back to reference Salanti G, Schmid CH. Research Synthesis Methods special issue on network meta-analysis: introduction from the editors. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):69–70.CrossRef Salanti G, Schmid CH. Research Synthesis Methods special issue on network meta-analysis: introduction from the editors. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):69–70.CrossRef
68.
go back to reference Hedges LV, Tipton E, Johnson MC. Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(1):39–65.CrossRef Hedges LV, Tipton E, Johnson MC. Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(1):39–65.CrossRef
69.
go back to reference Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1106–10.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ. 2008;336(7653):1106–10.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
70.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12.PubMedCrossRef Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12.PubMedCrossRef
71.
go back to reference Rogowski WH, Grosse SD, Khoury MJ. Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10(7):489–95.PubMedCrossRef Rogowski WH, Grosse SD, Khoury MJ. Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10(7):489–95.PubMedCrossRef
72.
go back to reference Khoury MJ. The case for a global human genome epidemiology initiative. Nat Genet. 2004;36(10):1027–8.PubMedCrossRef Khoury MJ. The case for a global human genome epidemiology initiative. Nat Genet. 2004;36(10):1027–8.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Addressing Multimorbidity in Evidence Integration and Synthesis
Authors
Thomas A. Trikalinos, MD
Jodi B. Segal, MD, MPH
Cynthia M. Boyd, MD, MPH
Publication date
01-04-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2661-4

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2014 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.