Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Can statistic adjustment of OR minimize the potential confounding bias for meta-analysis of case-control study? A secondary data analysis

Authors: Tianyi Liu, Xiaolu Nie, Zehao Wu, Ying Zhang, Guoshuang Feng, Siyu Cai, Yaqi Lv, Xiaoxia Peng

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Different confounder adjustment strategies were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) in case-control study, i.e. how many confounders original studies adjusted and what the variables are. This secondary data analysis is aimed to detect whether there are potential biases caused by difference of confounding factor adjustment strategies in case-control study, and whether such bias would impact the summary effect size of meta-analysis.

Methods

We included all meta-analyses that focused on the association between breast cancer and passive smoking among non-smoking women, as well as each original case-control studies included in these meta-analyses. The relative deviations (RDs) of each original study were calculated to detect how magnitude the adjustment would impact the estimation of ORs, compared with crude ORs. At the same time, a scatter diagram was sketched to describe the distribution of adjusted ORs with different number of adjusted confounders.

Results

Substantial inconsistency existed in meta-analysis of case-control studies, which would influence the precision of the summary effect size. First, mixed unadjusted and adjusted ORs were used to combine individual OR in majority of meta-analysis. Second, original studies with different adjustment strategies of confounders were combined, i.e. the number of adjusted confounders and different factors being adjusted in each original study. Third, adjustment did not make the effect size of original studies trend to constringency, which suggested that model fitting might have failed to correct the systematic error caused by confounding.

Conclusions

The heterogeneity of confounder adjustment strategies in case-control studies may lead to further bias for summary effect size in meta-analyses, especially for weak or medium associations so that the direction of causal inference would be even reversed. Therefore, further methodological researches are needed, referring to the assessment of confounder adjustment strategies, as well as how to take this kind of bias into consideration when drawing conclusion based on summary estimation of meta-analyses.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Walker E, Hernandez AV, Kattan MW. Meta-analysis: its strengths and limitations. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008;75(6):431–9.CrossRefPubMed Walker E, Hernandez AV, Kattan MW. Meta-analysis: its strengths and limitations. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008;75(6):431–9.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Stangl DK, Berry DA. Meta-analysis in medicine and health policy. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000.CrossRef Stangl DK, Berry DA. Meta-analysis in medicine and health policy. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Whitehead A, Whitehead J. A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Stat Med. 1991;10:1665–77. 1991CrossRefPubMed Whitehead A, Whitehead J. A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Stat Med. 1991;10:1665–77. 1991CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Glass G. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. American Educational Research Association: US; 1976. Glass G. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. American Educational Research Association: US; 1976.
6.
go back to reference Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ, Platt RW, Furlan A, Kakuma R, et al. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(10):1203–9.CrossRefPubMed Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ, Platt RW, Furlan A, Kakuma R, et al. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(10):1203–9.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Valentine JC, Thompson SG. Issues relating to confounding and meta-analysis when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4(1):26–35. 10.1002/jrsm.1064.CrossRefPubMed Valentine JC, Thompson SG. Issues relating to confounding and meta-analysis when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4(1):26–35. 10.​1002/​jrsm.​1064.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Shapiro S. Is meta-analysis a valid approach to the evaluation of small effects in observational studies? J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(3):223–9.CrossRefPubMed Shapiro S. Is meta-analysis a valid approach to the evaluation of small effects in observational studies? J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(3):223–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Wells GA, Shea B, Higgins JP, Sterne J, Tugwell P, Reeves BC. Checklists of methodological issues for review authors to consider when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4(1):63–77. 10.1002/jrsm.1077.CrossRefPubMed Wells GA, Shea B, Higgins JP, Sterne J, Tugwell P, Reeves BC. Checklists of methodological issues for review authors to consider when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4(1):63–77. 10.​1002/​jrsm.​1077.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Stephen BH, Steven RC, Warren SB, Deborah GG, Thomas BN. Designing clinical research. 4th ed. USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013. Stephen BH, Steven RC, Warren SB, Deborah GG, Thomas BN. Designing clinical research. 4th ed. USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
12.
go back to reference Dossus L, Boutron-Ruault MC, Kaaks R, Gram IT, Vilier A, Fervers B, et al. Active and passive cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk: results from the EPIC cohort. Int J Cancer. 2014;134(8):1871–88. 10.1002/ijc.28508.CrossRefPubMed Dossus L, Boutron-Ruault MC, Kaaks R, Gram IT, Vilier A, Fervers B, et al. Active and passive cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk: results from the EPIC cohort. Int J Cancer. 2014;134(8):1871–88. 10.​1002/​ijc.​28508.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Ma J, Shi BL, Zuo WS. Meta-analysis of the relationship between passive smoking and breast cancer. Chin Cancer. 2011;20:525–8. [In Chinese] Ma J, Shi BL, Zuo WS. Meta-analysis of the relationship between passive smoking and breast cancer. Chin Cancer. 2011;20:525–8. [In Chinese]
19.
go back to reference Pirie K, Beral V, Peto R, Roddam A, Reeves G, Green J, et al. Passive smoking and breast cancer in never smokers: prospective study and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(5):1069–79. 10.1093/ije/dyn110.CrossRefPubMed Pirie K, Beral V, Peto R, Roddam A, Reeves G, Green J, et al. Passive smoking and breast cancer in never smokers: prospective study and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(5):1069–79. 10.​1093/​ije/​dyn110.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Sadri G, Mahjub H. Passive or active smoking, which is more relevant to breast cancer. Saudi Med J. 2007;28(2):254–8.PubMed Sadri G, Mahjub H. Passive or active smoking, which is more relevant to breast cancer. Saudi Med J. 2007;28(2):254–8.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Zhou XB, Zhang J. Meta-analysis of the relationship between passive smoking and female breast cancer in China. Chin J Clin Rehab. 2006;10:6–8. [in Chinese] Zhou XB, Zhang J. Meta-analysis of the relationship between passive smoking and female breast cancer in China. Chin J Clin Rehab. 2006;10:6–8. [in Chinese]
22.
go back to reference Johnson KC. Accumulating evidence on passive and active smoking and breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer. 2005;117(4):619–28.CrossRefPubMed Johnson KC. Accumulating evidence on passive and active smoking and breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer. 2005;117(4):619–28.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Khuder SA, Simon VJ. Is there an association between passive smoking and breast cancer? Eur J Epidemiol. 2001;16:1117–21.CrossRef Khuder SA, Simon VJ. Is there an association between passive smoking and breast cancer? Eur J Epidemiol. 2001;16:1117–21.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001.CrossRef Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Thompson S, Ekelund U, Jebb S, Lindroos AK, Mander A, Sharp S, et al. A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of published observational studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(3):765–77. 10.1093/ije/dyq248.CrossRefPubMed Thompson S, Ekelund U, Jebb S, Lindroos AK, Mander A, Sharp S, et al. A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of published observational studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(3):765–77. 10.​1093/​ije/​dyq248.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Deeks J. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):iii–x. 1-173CrossRefPubMed Deeks J. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):iii–x. 1-173CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Valentine JC, Cooper H. A systematic and transparent approach for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effectiveness research: the study design and implementation assessment device (study DIAD). Psychol Methods. 2008;13:130–49. 10.1037/1082-989X.13.2.130.CrossRefPubMed Valentine JC, Cooper H. A systematic and transparent approach for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effectiveness research: the study design and implementation assessment device (study DIAD). Psychol Methods. 2008;13:130–49. 10.​1037/​1082-989X.​13.​2.​130.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Can statistic adjustment of OR minimize the potential confounding bias for meta-analysis of case-control study? A secondary data analysis
Authors
Tianyi Liu
Xiaolu Nie
Zehao Wu
Ying Zhang
Guoshuang Feng
Siyu Cai
Yaqi Lv
Xiaoxia Peng
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0454-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017 Go to the issue