Bias in Associations of Emerging Biomarkers With Cardiovascular Disease

Ioanna Tzoulaki · Konstantinos C. Siontis · Εvangelos Εvangelou · John P. A. Ioannidis

108 citations0/0 files storedJAMA Internal Medicine

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health Statistical Methods in Epidemiology

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Numerous cardiovascular biomarkers are proposed as potential predictors of cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there is evidence for biases favoring statistically significant results and inflating associations in this literature. DESIGN AND SETTING: PubMed search for meta-analyses of cardiovascular biomarkers that are not part of the Framingham Risk Score. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We estimated summary effects and between-study heterogeneity (considered "very large" for I2 > 75%). We evaluated whether large studies had significantly more conservative results than smaller studies (small-study effects) and whether there were too many studies with statistically significant results compared with what would be expected on the basis of the findings of the largest study in each meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 56 eligible meta-analyses, 49 had statistically significant results. Very large heterogeneity and small-study effects were seen in 9 and 13 meta-analyses, respectively. In 29 meta-analyses (52%), there was a significant excess of studies with statistically significant results. Only 13 of the statistically significant meta-analyses had more than 1000 cases and no hints of large heterogeneity, small-study effects, or excess significance. These included the associations of glomerular filtration rate and albumin to creatinine ratio in general and high-risk populations with cardiovascular disease mortality and of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, serum albumin, Chlamydia pneumoniae IgG, glycosylated hemoglobin, nonfasting insulin, apolipoprotein B/AI ratio, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase mass or activity with coronary heart disease. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Selective reporting biases may be common in the evidence on emerging cardiovascular biomarkers. Most of the proposed associations of these biomarkers may be inflated.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 108 citations exist upstream.

References

1997Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False 2011Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False 1997Quantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews 2004Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials 2008Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias 2000A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis

Cited by

2017Does psychotherapy work? An umbrella review of meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials 2016Reporting of Positive Results in Randomized Controlled Trials of Mindfulness-Based Mental Health Interventions 2016Bias in Peripheral Depression Biomarkers 2016Randomized trials are frequently fragmented in multiple secondary publications 2017Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.