Advertisement

Diagnostic Meta-Analysis: Case Study in Gastroenterology

  • Bashar J. Qumseya
  • Michael Wallace
Chapter

Abstract

Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical tools to combine and compare the results of multiple studies on particular outcomes on interest. Use of meta-analysis in the medical literature, including the field of gastroenterology, has been increasing. Conducting high-quality meta-analysis can be challenging. Similarly understanding published meta-analyses can be difficult. In this chapter, we will present several case studies on meta-analyses in gastroenterology. We will use these studies to shed light on several key factors in meta-analyses. These factors include the importance of choosing the appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria, deciding on the best meta-meter of interest, recognizing and dealing with duplicate cohorts, and using direct and indirect comparisons. Our goal is to show how meta-analyses can be great tools for providing evidence-based results that can have a significant impact on clinical practice in the field of gastroenterology.

Keywords

Systematic review Meta-analysis Clinical research Gastroenterology Endoscopy Epidemiology 

Abbreviations

AI

Advanced imaging

BE

Barrett’s esophagus

CE

Chromoendoscopy

CI

Confidence interval

EAC

Esophageal adenocarcinoma

EMR

Endoscopic mucosal resection

EUS

Endoscopic ultrasound

HGD

High-grade dysplasia

LGD

Low-grade dysplasia

MA

Meta-analysis

QUADAS

Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

RD

Risk difference

RFA

Radiofrequency ablation

SR

Systematic review

VC

Virtual chromoendoscopy

WLE

White light endoscopy

References

  1. 1.
    Oberg S, Wenner J, Johansson J, Walther B, Willen R. Barrett esophagus: risk factors for progression to dysplasia and adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2005;242:49–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menke-Pluymers MB, Hop WC, Dees J, van Blankenstein M, Tilanus HW. Risk factors for the development of an adenocarcinoma in columnar-lined (Barrett) esophagus. The Rotterdam Esophageal Tumor Study Group. Cancer. 1993;72:1155–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Desai TK, Krishnan K, Samala N, Singh J, Cluley J, Perla S, et al. The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in non-dysplastic Barrett’s oesophagus: a meta-analysis. Gut. 2012;61:970–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singh S, Manickam P, Amin AV, Samala N, Schouten LJ, Iyer PG, et al. Incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus with low-grade dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:897–909.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kariv R, Plesec TP, Goldblum JR, Bronner M, Oldenburgh M, Rice TW, et al. The Seattle protocol does not more reliably predict the detection of cancer at the time of esophagectomy than a less intensive surveillance protocol. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:653–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Qumseya BJ, Wang H, Badie N, Uzomba RN, Parasa S, White DL, et al. Advanced imaging technologies increase detection of dysplasia and neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:1562–70.e1–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Qumseya BJ, Brown J, Abraham M, White D, Wolfsen H, Gupta N, et al. Diagnostic performance of EUS in predicting advanced cancer among patients with Barrett’s esophagus and high-grade dysplasia/early adenocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:865–74.e2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Qumseya BJ, Wani S, Desai M, Qumseya A, Bain P, Sharma P, et al. Adverse events after radiofrequency ablation in patients with Barrett’s esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:1086–95.e6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Qumseya BJ, Wani S, Gendy S, Harnke B, Bergman JJ, Wolfsen H. Disease progression in Barrett’s low-grade dysplasia with radiofrequency ablation compared to surveillance: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:849–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shaheen NJ, Kim HP, Bulsiewicz WJ, Lyday WD, Triadafilopoulos G, Wolfsen HC, et al. Prior fundoplication does not improve safety or efficacy outcomes of radiofrequency ablation: results from the U.S. RFA Registry. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:21–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:377–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Gastroenterology and HepatologyArchbold Medical Group/Florida State UniversityThomasvilleUSA
  2. 2.Division of Gastroenterology and HepatologyMayo ClinicJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations