Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf ; 2023 Apr 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2302834

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Heterogeneous results from multi-database studies have been observed, for example, in the context of generating background incidence rates (IRs) for adverse events of special interest for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. In this study, we aimed to explore different between-database sources of heterogeneity influencing the estimated background IR of venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: Through forest plots and random-effects models, we performed a qualitative and quantitative assessment of heterogeneity of VTE background IR derived from 11 databases from 6 European countries, using age and gender stratified background IR for the years 2017-2019 estimated in two studies. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of selection criteria on the variability of the reported IR. RESULTS: A total of 54 257 284 subjects were included in this study. Age-gender pooled VTE IR varied from 5 to 421/100 000 person-years and IR increased with increasing age for both genders. Wide confidence intervals (CIs) demonstrated considerable within-data-source heterogeneity. Selecting databases with similar characteristics had only a minor impact on the variability as shown in forest plots and the magnitude of the I2 statistic, which remained large. Solely including databases with primary care and hospital data resulted in a noticeable decrease in heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Large variability in IR between data sources and within age group and gender strata warrants the need for stratification and limits the feasibility of a meaningful pooled estimate. A more detailed knowledge of the data characteristics, operationalisation of case definitions and cohort population might support an informed choice of the adequate databases to calculate reliable estimates.

2.
BMJ ; 378: e069881, 2022 07 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1932661

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To externally validate various prognostic models and scoring rules for predicting short term mortality in patients admitted to hospital for covid-19. DESIGN: Two stage individual participant data meta-analysis. SETTING: Secondary and tertiary care. PARTICIPANTS: 46 914 patients across 18 countries, admitted to a hospital with polymerase chain reaction confirmed covid-19 from November 2019 to April 2021. DATA SOURCES: Multiple (clustered) cohorts in Brazil, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Iran, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States previously identified by a living systematic review of covid-19 prediction models published in The BMJ, and through PROSPERO, reference checking, and expert knowledge. MODEL SELECTION AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prognostic models identified by the living systematic review and through contacting experts. A priori models were excluded that had a high risk of bias in the participant domain of PROBAST (prediction model study risk of bias assessment tool) or for which the applicability was deemed poor. METHODS: Eight prognostic models with diverse predictors were identified and validated. A two stage individual participant data meta-analysis was performed of the estimated model concordance (C) statistic, calibration slope, calibration-in-the-large, and observed to expected ratio (O:E) across the included clusters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 30 day mortality or in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Datasets included 27 clusters from 18 different countries and contained data on 46 914patients. The pooled estimates ranged from 0.67 to 0.80 (C statistic), 0.22 to 1.22 (calibration slope), and 0.18 to 2.59 (O:E ratio) and were prone to substantial between study heterogeneity. The 4C Mortality Score by Knight et al (pooled C statistic 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.84, 95% prediction interval 0.72 to 0.86) and clinical model by Wang et al (0.77, 0.73 to 0.80, 0.63 to 0.87) had the highest discriminative ability. On average, 29% fewer deaths were observed than predicted by the 4C Mortality Score (pooled O:E 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.11, 95% prediction interval 0.21 to 2.39), 35% fewer than predicted by the Wang clinical model (0.65, 0.52 to 0.82, 0.23 to 1.89), and 4% fewer than predicted by Xie et al's model (0.96, 0.59 to 1.55, 0.21 to 4.28). CONCLUSION: The prognostic value of the included models varied greatly between the data sources. Although the Knight 4C Mortality Score and Wang clinical model appeared most promising, recalibration (intercept and slope updates) is needed before implementation in routine care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Models, Statistical , Data Analysis , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Prognosis
3.
BMJ Open ; 11(11): e052969, 2021 11 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1515303

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Causal methods have been adopted and adapted across health disciplines, particularly for the analysis of single studies. However, the sample sizes necessary to best inform decision-making are often not attainable with single studies, making pooled individual-level data analysis invaluable for public health efforts. Researchers commonly implement causal methods prevailing in their home disciplines, and how these are selected, evaluated, implemented and reported may vary widely. To our knowledge, no article has yet evaluated trends in the implementation and reporting of causal methods in studies leveraging individual-level data pooled from several studies. We undertake this review to uncover patterns in the implementation and reporting of causal methods used across disciplines in research focused on health outcomes. We will investigate variations in methods to infer causality used across disciplines, time and geography and identify gaps in reporting of methods to inform the development of reporting standards and the conversation required to effect change. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search four databases (EBSCO, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science) using a search strategy developed with librarians from three universities (Heidelberg University, Harvard University, and University of California, San Francisco). The search strategy includes terms such as 'pool*', 'harmoniz*', 'cohort*', 'observational', variations on 'individual-level data'. Four reviewers will independently screen articles using Covidence and extract data from included articles. The extracted data will be analysed descriptively in tables and graphically to reveal the pattern in methods implementation and reporting. This protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020143148). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval was required as only publicly available data were used. The results will be submitted as a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal, disseminated in conferences if relevant, and published as part of doctoral dissertations in Global Health at the Heidelberg University Hospital.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care , Research Design , Causality , Humans , San Francisco , Systematic Reviews as Topic
4.
PLoS One ; 16(4): e0250778, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1207637

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Pooling (or combining) and analysing observational, longitudinal data at the individual level facilitates inference through increased sample sizes, allowing for joint estimation of study- and individual-level exposure variables, and better enabling the assessment of rare exposures and diseases. Empirical studies leveraging such methods when randomization is unethical or impractical have grown in the health sciences in recent years. The adoption of so-called "causal" methods to account for both/either measured and/or unmeasured confounders is an important addition to the methodological toolkit for understanding the distribution, progression, and consequences of infectious diseases (IDs) and interventions on IDs. In the face of the Covid-19 pandemic and in the absence of systematic randomization of exposures or interventions, the value of these methods is even more apparent. Yet to our knowledge, no studies have assessed how causal methods involving pooling individual-level, observational, longitudinal data are being applied in ID-related research. In this systematic review, we assess how these methods are used and reported in ID-related research over the last 10 years. Findings will facilitate evaluation of trends of causal methods for ID research and lead to concrete recommendations for how to apply these methods where gaps in methodological rigor are identified. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will apply MeSH and text terms to identify relevant studies from EBSCO (Academic Search Complete, Business Source Premier, CINAHL, EconLit with Full Text, PsychINFO), EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Eligible studies are those that apply causal methods to account for confounding when assessing the effects of an intervention or exposure on an ID-related outcome using pooled, individual-level data from 2 or more longitudinal, observational studies. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, will be independently screened by two reviewers using Covidence software. Discrepancies will be resolved by a third reviewer. This systematic review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020204104).


Subject(s)
Communicable Diseases/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Causality , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic
5.
BMJ ; 369: m1328, 2020 04 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-648504

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. DESIGN: Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. DATA EXTRACTION: At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). RESULTS: 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. CONCLUSION: Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Models, Theoretical , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , COVID-19 , Coronavirus , Disease Progression , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Multivariate Analysis , Pandemics , Prognosis
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL