Maguire, Melissa J., Hemming, Karla, Hutton, Jane L. and Marson, Anthony G.. (2008) Overwhelming heterogeneity in systematic reviews of observational anti-epileptic studies. Epilepsy Research, Volume 80 (Number 2-3). pp. 201-212. ISSN 0920-1211

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Purpose: Observational studies may provide important information on the long-term effects of treatments for epilepsy, but systematic reviews of observational studies may be more prone to heterogeneity and biases. These issues were investigated in a systematic review of non-randomised add-on anti-epileptic drug studies. Methods: Searches of MEDLINE (1966-2006), EMBASE (1974-2006), CINAHL (1982-2006), the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, the Cochrane Controlled Trials register, the DARE database and hand-searching congress proceedings were conducted. Randomised controlled trials, follow-on randomised controlled trials and prospective and retrospective cohort studies of gabapentin, topiramate, or levetiracetam as add-on therapy in adults (>12 years aid) were identified. Outcomes were 50% responders and proportion seizure free. Results: Thirty-eight non-randomised gabapentin studies, 82 topiramate and 84 levetiracetam studies were identified. There was marked heterogeneity of effect estimates from observational studies which prohibited the pooling of estimates in random effects models. Median effect estimates were larger and more varied for observational studies than randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs). For example, the median value (10(th) and 90(th) percentile) for 50% responders for gabapentin was 36% (15 and 71%) compared to 23% (19 and 38%) for gabapentin RCTs. Patient and study covariates in meta-regression models could not explain the vast heterogeneity. Publication bias was evident and a sensitivity analysis, allowing for the effects of publication bias, showed that effect estimates could increase by up to 6% for seizure freedom rates. Discussion: Reports of observational anti-epileptic studies give limited information on patient selection and characteristics. Systematic reviews of observational studies are prone to significant heterogeneity and bias which cannot adequately be explained by reported study characteristics. Reporting standards for observational studies of anti-epileptic drugs could be improved by following guidelines for reporting non-randomised studies of interventions. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General) R Medicine > RC Internal medicine > RC0321 Neuroscience. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry R Medicine > RM Therapeutics. Pharmacology
Divisions:	Faculty of Science > Statistics
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Systematic reviews (Medical research), Meta-analysis, Epilepsy -- Treatment -- Research, Anticonvulsants
Journal or Publication Title:	Epilepsy Research
Publisher:	Elsevier BV
ISSN:	0920-1211
Date:	August 2008
Volume:	Volume 80
Number:	Number 2-3
Number of Pages:	12
Page Range:	pp. 201-212
Identification Number:	10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2008.03.024
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
Funder:	Medical Research Council (Great Britain) (MRC)
Grant number:	G0400642 (MRC)
References:	Begg, C.B., Berlin, J.A., 1989. Publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 81, 107—115. Bhandari, M., Devereaux, P.J., Guyatt, G.H., Cook, D.J., Swiontkowski, M.F., Sprague, S., et al., 2002. An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J. Bone Joint Surg.: Am. 84-A (4), 615—621. Chalmers, I., 1990. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 263, 1405—1408. Colditz, G.A., Miller, J.N., Mosteller, F., 1989. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I. Medical. Stat. Med. 8, 441—454. Copas, J.B., Shi, J.Q., 2001. A sensitivity analysis for publication bias in systematic reviews. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 10 (4), 251—265. Dickersin, K., Min, Y.I., Meinert, C.L., 1992. Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 267 (3), 374—378. Dickersin, K., Scherer, R., Lefebvre, C., 1994. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 309 (6964), 1286—1291. Dickersin, K., 1997. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ. Prev. 9 (1 Suppl.), 15—21. Dodson, W.E., Kamin, M., Kraut, L., Olson, W.H., Wu, S.C., 2003. Topiramate titration to response: analysis of individualized therapy study (TRAITS). Ann. Pharmacother. 37 (5), 615—620. Easterbrook, P.J., Berlin, J.A., Gopalan, R., Matthews, D.R., 1991. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337 (8746), 867—872. Egger, M., Smith, G.D., Schneider, M., Minder, C., 1997. Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315 (7109), 629—634. Egger, M., Smith, G.D., 1998. Bias in the location and selection of studies. BMJ 316, 61—66. Elm, E.V., Altman, D.G., Egger, M., Pocock, S.J., Gøtzsche, P.C., Vandenbroucke, J.P., STROBE Initiative, 2007. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 335, 806—808. Gregoire, G., Derderian, F., Le, L.J., 1995. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 48 (1), 159—163. Hartling, L., Craig, W.R., Russell, K., Stevens, K., Klassen, T.P., 2004. Factors influencing the publication of randomized controlled trials in child health research. Arch. Pediatr. Adolescent Med. 158 (10), 983—987. Haynes, R.B., Wilczynski, N., McKibbon, K.A., Walker, C.J., Sinclair, J.C., 1994. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 1 (6), 447—458. Hemming, K., Hutton, J.L., Maguire, M.J., Marson, A.G., 2008. Open-label extension studies and patient selection biases. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 14, 141—144. Hubbard, R., Armstrong, J.S., 1997. Publication bias against null results. Psychol. Rep. 80 (11), 337—338. Marson, A.G., Kadir, Z.A., Hutton, J.L., Chadwick, D.W., 2000. The new anti-epileptic drugs: a systematic review of their efficacy and tolerability. Epilepsia 38, 859—880. Morrell, M.J., McLean, M.J., Willmore, L.J., Privitera, M.D., Faught, R.E., Holmes, G.L., 2000. Efficacy of gabapentin as adjunctive therapy in a large, multi-centre study, The Steps Study Group. Seizure 9 (4), 241—248. Morrell, M.J., Leppik, I., French, J., Ferrendelli, J., Han, J., Magnus, L., 2003. The KEEPER trial: levetiracetam adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures in an open-label communitybased study. Epilepsy Res. 54 (2—3), 153—161. Sacks, H.S., Reitman, D., Pagano, D., Kupelnick, B., 1996. Metaanalysis: an update. Mt. Sinai J. Med. 63 (3—4), 216—224. Sterling, T., 1995. Publication decisions revisited: the effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. Am. Stat. 49, 108—112. Stern, J.M., Simes, R.J., 1997. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 315 (7109), 640—645. US Gabapentin Study Group, 1994. The long-term safety and efficacy of gabapentin (Neurontin) as add-on therapy in drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 18 (1), 67—73.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/29472

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item