4 results found
Van Vogt E, Cro S, Cornelius VR, et al., 2021, Individual participant data meta-analysis versus aggregate data meta-analysis: a case study in eczema and food allergy prevention., Clinical and Experimental Allergy, Vol: 52, ISSN: 0954-7894
INTRODUCTION: Meta-analysis traditionally uses aggregate data from published reports. Individual Participant Data (IPD) meta-analysis, which obtains and synthesises participant-level data, is potentially more informative, but resource-intensive. The impact on the findings of meta-analyses using IPD in comparison to aggregate data has rarely been formally evaluated. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review of skin care interventions for preventing eczema and food allergy in infants to identify the impact of the analytical choice on the review's findings. We used aggregate data meta-analysis only and contrasted the results against those of the originally published IPD meta-analysis. All meta-analysis used random effects inverse variance models. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: The pooled treatment effects for the Cochrane systematic review's co-primary outcomes of eczema and food allergy were similar in IPD meta-analysis (eczema RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81, 1.31; I2 41%, 7 studies 3075 participants), and aggregate meta-analysis (eczema RR 1.01 95% CI 0.77, 1.33; I2 53%, 7 studies, 3089 participants). In aggregate meta-analysis the statistical heterogeneity could not be explained but using IPD it was explained by one trial which used a different, bathing intervention. For IPD meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed as lower and more adverse event data were available compared with aggregate meta-analysis. This resulted in higher certainty of evidence, especially for adverse events. IPD meta-analysis enabled analysis of treatment interactions by age and hereditary eczema risk; and analysis of the effect of treatment adherence using pooled complier-adjusted-causal-effect analysis, none of which was possible in aggregate meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For this systematic review, IPD did not significantly change primary outcome risk ratios compared with aggregate data meta-analysis. However, certainty of evidence, safety out
Tan P-T, Cro S, Van Vogt E, et al., 2021, A review of the use of controlled multiple imputation in randomised controlled trials with missing outcome data, BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol: 21, ISSN: 1471-2288
Background:Missing data are common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and can bias results if not handled appropriately. A statistically valid analysis under the primary missing-data assumptions should be conducted, followed by sensitivity analysis under alternative justified assumptions to assess the robustness of results. Controlled Multiple Imputation (MI) procedures, including delta-based and reference-based approaches, have been developed for analysis under missing-not-at-random assumptions. However, it is unclear how often these methods are used, how they are reported, and what their impact is on trial results. This review evaluates the current use and reporting of MI and controlled MI in RCTs.Methods:A targeted review of phase II-IV RCTs (non-cluster randomised) published in two leading general medical journals (The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine) between January 2014 and December 2019 using MI. Data was extracted on imputation methods, analysis status, and reporting of results. Results of primary and sensitivity analyses for trials using controlled MI analyses were compared.Results:A total of 118 RCTs (9% of published RCTs) used some form of MI. MI under missing-at-random was used in 110 trials; this was for primary analysis in 43/118 (36%), and in sensitivity analysis for 70/118 (59%) (3 used in both). Sixteen studies performed controlled MI (1.3% of published RCTs), either with a delta-based (n = 9) or reference-based approach (n = 7). Controlled MI was mostly used in sensitivity analysis (n = 14/16). Two trials used controlled MI for primary analysis, including one reporting no sensitivity analysis whilst the other reported similar results without imputation. Of the 14 trials using controlled MI in sensitivity analysis, 12 yielded comparable results to the primary analysis whereas 2 demonstrated contradicting results. Only 5/110 (5%) trials using missing-at-random MI and 5/16 (31%) trials using con
Kelleher MM, Cro S, Van Vogt E, et al., 2021, Skincare interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy: A cochrane systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis, Clinical and Experimental Allergy, Vol: 51, Pages: 402-418, ISSN: 0954-7894
ObjectiveEczema and food allergy start in infancy and have shared genetic risk factors that affect skin barrier. We aimed to evaluate whether skincare interventions can prevent eczema or food allergy.DesignA prospectively planned individual participant data meta‐analysis was carried out within a Cochrane systematic review to determine whether skincare interventions in term infants prevent eczema or food allergy.Data sourcesCochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries to July 2020.Eligibility criteria for selected studiesIncluded studies were randomized controlled trials of infants <1 year with healthy skin comparing a skin intervention with a control, for prevention of eczema and food allergy outcomes between 1 and 3 years.ResultsOf the 33 identified trials, 17 trials (5823 participants) had relevant outcome data and 10 (5154 participants) contributed to IPD meta‐analysis. Three of seven trials contributing to primary eczema analysis were at low risk of bias, and the single trial contributing to primary food allergy analysis was at high risk of bias. Interventions were mainly emollients, applied for the first 3–12 months. Skincare interventions probably do not change risk of eczema by age 1–3 years (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81, 1.31; I2=41%; moderate certainty; 3075 participants, 7 trials). Sensitivity analysis found heterogeneity was explained by increased eczema in a trial of daily bathing as part of the intervention. It is unclear whether skincare interventions increase risk of food allergy by age 1–3 years (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; very low certainty; 996 participants, 1 trial), but they probably increase risk of local skin infections (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02, 1.77; I2=0%; moderate certainty; 2728 participants, 6 trials).ConclusionRegular emollients during infancy probably do not prevent eczema and probably increase local skin infections.
Kelleher MM, Cro S, Cornelius V, et al., 2021, Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Vol: 2021, Pages: 1-165, ISSN: 1469-493X
BACKGROUND: Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective in preventing eczema or food allergy. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To assess effects of skin care interventions, such as emollients, for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to July 2020: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (0 to 12 months) without pre-existing diagnosis of eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition were included. Comparison was standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions included moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary ana
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.