| Popis: |
Abstract Background Different methodological choices such as inclusion/exclusion criteria and analytical models can yield different results and inferences when meta-analyses are performed. We explored the range of such differences, using several methodological choices for indirect comparison meta-analyses to compare nalmefene and naltrexone in the reduction of alcohol consumption as a case study. Methods All double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nalmefene to naltrexone or one of these compounds to a placebo in the treatment of alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorders were considered. Two reviewers searched for published and unpublished studies in MEDLINE (August 2017), the Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov and contacted pharmaceutical companies, the European Medicines Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration. The indirect comparison meta-analyses were performed according to different inclusion/exclusion criteria (based on medical condition, abstinence of patients before inclusion, gender, somatic and psychiatric comorbidity, psychological support, treatment administered and dose, treatment duration, outcome reported, publication status, and risk of bias) and different analytical models (fixed and random effects). The primary outcome was the vibration of effects (VoE), i.e. the range of different results of the indirect comparison between nalmefene and naltrexone. The presence of a “Janus effect” was investigated, i.e. whether the 1st and 99th percentiles in the distribution of effect sizes were in opposite directions. Results Nine nalmefene and 51 naltrexone RCTs were included. No study provided a direct comparison between the drugs. We performed 9216 meta-analyses for the indirect comparison with a median of 16 RCTs (interquartile range = 12–21) included in each meta-analysis. The standardized effect size was negative at the 1st percentile (− 0.29, favouring nalmefene) and positive at the 99th percentile (0.29, favouring naltrexone). A total of 7.1% (425/5961) of the meta-analyses with a negative effect size and 18.9% (616/3255) of those with a positive effect size were statistically significant (p |
