Key result
Standardization of relative risks according to blood pressure lowering increased heterogeneity between trials (I2=36% vs 93% for mortality) and resulted in biased effect estimates.
Why the study?
Does standardization of relative risks and standard errors according to blood pressure lowering affect heterogeneity, effect estimates, and study weights in meta-analyses of antihypertensive trials?
Population
Data from a previous systematic review of antihypertensive treatment trials
Comparison
Standardization of relative risks and standard… vs Raw data from the included trials
Authors
Loading...
Standardization biases antihypertensive meta-analyses; challenges its methodological use and warrants caution in interpreting prior syntheses.
Meta-Analysis
Does standardization of relative risks and standard errors according to blood pressure lowering affect heterogeneity, effect estimates, and study weights in meta-analyses of antihypertensive trials?
Absolute Event Rate: 93% vs 36%
Standardization of relative risks and standard errors in meta-analyses of antihypertensive trials exaggerates differences between trials, masks heterogeneity, and results in biased effect estimates.
Brunström et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis in Antihypertensive treatment. Standardization of relative risks and standard errors vs. Raw data was evaluated on Heterogeneity between trials (I2 for mortality). Standardization of relative risks according to blood pressure lowering increased heterogeneity between trials (I2=36% vs 93% for mortality) and resulted in biased effect estimates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: