Dose-response meta-analysis, an important tool in investigating the relationship between a certain exposure and risk of disease, has been increasingly applied. Traditionally, the dose-response meta-analysis was only modelled as linearity. However, since the proposal of more powerful function models, which contains both linear, quadratic, cubic or more higher order term within the regression model, the non-linearity model of dose-response relationship is also available. The packages suit for R are available now. In this article, we introduced how to conduct a dose-response meta-analysis using dosresmeta and mvmeta packages in R.
Dose-response relationship model has been widely used in epidemiology studies, as well as in evidence-based medicine area. In dose-response meta-analysis, the results are highly depended on the raw data. However, many primary studies did not provide sufficient data and led the difficulties in data analysis. The efficiency and response rate of collecting the raw data from original authors were always low, thus, evaluating and transforming the missing data is very important. In this paper, we summarized several types of missing data, and introduced how to estimate the missing data and transform the effect measure using the existed information.
Trial sequential analysis (TSA) could be performed in both TSA software and Stata software. The implementation process of TSA in Stata needs the command of "metacumbounds" of Stata combines with the packages of "foreign" and "ldbounds" of R software. This paper briefly introduces how to implement TSA using Stata software.
ObjectiveTo develop reporting guideline for dose-response meta-analysis (DMA), so as to help Chinese authors to understand DMA better and to promote the reporting quality of DMA conducted by them. MethodPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WanFang Data were searched from Jan 1st 2011 to Dec 30th 2015 to collect DMA papers published by Chinese authors. The number of these publications by years, whether and what kind of reporting guideline was used, and whether the DMA method claimed in these publications was correct were analysed. Then we drafted a checklist of items for reporting DMA, and organized a discussion meeting with experts from the fields of DMA, evidence-based medicine, clinical epidemiology, and clinicians to collect suggestions for revising the draft reporting guideline for DMA. ResultsOnly 33.73% of the publications clarified it is a DMA on the title and 48.02% of them reported risk of bias. Almost 38.49% of the publications didn't use any reporting guidelines. Fourteen of them claimed an incorrect use of methodology. We primarily took account for 47 potential items related to DMA based on our literature analysis results and existing reporting guidelines for other types of meta-analyses. After the discussion meeting with 6 experts, we revised the items, and finally the G-Dose checklist with 43 items for reporting DMA was developed. ConclusionThere is a lack of attention on reporting guidelines in Chinese authors and evidence suggests these authors may be at risk of incomplete understanding on reporting guidelines. It is strongly recommended to use reporting guidelines for DMA and other types of meta-analyses in Chinese authors.