PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
Individual participant data pooled analyses allow access to non-published data and statistical reanalyses based on more homogeneous criteria than meta-analyses based on systematic reviews. We quantified the impact of publication-related biases and heterogeneity in data analysis and presentation in summary estimates of the association between alcohol drinking and gastric cancer.
We compared estimates obtained from conventional meta-analyses, using only data available in published reports from studies that take part in the Stomach Cancer Pooling (StoP) Project, with individual participant data pooled analyses including the same studies.
A total of 22 studies from the StoP Project assessed the relation between alcohol intake and gastric cancer, 19 had specific data for levels of consumption and 18 according to cancer location; published reports addressing these associations were available from 18, 5 and 5 studies, respectively. The summary odds ratios [OR, (95%CI)] estimate obtained with published data for drinkers vs. non-drinkers was 10% higher than the one obtained with individual StoP data [18 vs. 22 studies: 1.21 (1.07-1.36) vs. 1.10 (0.99-1.23)] and more heterogeneous (I2: 63.6% vs 54.4%). In general, published data yielded less precise summary estimates (standard errors up to 2.6 times higher). Funnel plot analysis suggested publication bias.
Meta-analyses of the association between alcohol drinking and gastric cancer tended to overestimate the magnitude of the effects, possibly due to publication bias. Additionally, individual participant data pooled analyses yielded more precise estimates for different levels of exposure or cancer subtypes.
We compared estimates obtained from conventional meta-analyses, using only data available in published reports from studies that take part in the Stomach Cancer Pooling (StoP) Project, with individual participant data pooled analyses including the same studies.
A total of 22 studies from the StoP Project assessed the relation between alcohol intake and gastric cancer, 19 had specific data for levels of consumption and 18 according to cancer location; published reports addressing these associations were available from 18, 5 and 5 studies, respectively. The summary odds ratios [OR, (95%CI)] estimate obtained with published data for drinkers vs. non-drinkers was 10% higher than the one obtained with individual StoP data [18 vs. 22 studies: 1.21 (1.07-1.36) vs. 1.10 (0.99-1.23)] and more heterogeneous (I2: 63.6% vs 54.4%). In general, published data yielded less precise summary estimates (standard errors up to 2.6 times higher). Funnel plot analysis suggested publication bias.
Meta-analyses of the association between alcohol drinking and gastric cancer tended to overestimate the magnitude of the effects, possibly due to publication bias. Additionally, individual participant data pooled analyses yielded more precise estimates for different levels of exposure or cancer subtypes.
摘要：
与基于系统评价的荟萃分析相比，个人参与者数据汇总分析允许基于更同质的标准访问未发布的数据和统计再分析。我们量化了与发表相关的偏见和异质性在数据分析中的影响，并在饮酒与胃癌之间的关联的摘要估计中进行了描述。
我们比较了从传统荟萃分析获得的估计值，仅使用参与胃癌汇集（StoP）项目的研究的已发表报告中提供的数据，与个体参与者数据汇总分析，包括相同的研究。
来自StoP项目的总共22项研究评估了酒精摄入与胃癌之间的关系，19个有关于消费水平的具体数据，18个有根据癌症位置的具体数据；18个、5个和5个研究提供了解决这些关联的已发表报告。分别。汇总赔率比[或，（95CI）]用公布的饮酒者数据获得的估计值与非饮酒者比使用单独的StoP数据获得的高出10%[18vs.22项研究：1.21（1.07-1.36）vs.1.10（0.99-1.23）]和更多的异质性（I2：63.6%vs54.4%）。总的来说,公布的数据得出的汇总估计不太精确(标准误差高达2.6倍).漏斗图分析提示发表偏倚。
饮酒与胃癌之间的关系的荟萃分析倾向于高估影响的程度，可能是由于出版偏见。此外,个体参与者数据汇总分析对不同暴露水平或癌症亚型产生了更精确的估计.
我们比较了从传统荟萃分析获得的估计值，仅使用参与胃癌汇集（StoP）项目的研究的已发表报告中提供的数据，与个体参与者数据汇总分析，包括相同的研究。
来自StoP项目的总共22项研究评估了酒精摄入与胃癌之间的关系，19个有关于消费水平的具体数据，18个有根据癌症位置的具体数据；18个、5个和5个研究提供了解决这些关联的已发表报告。分别。汇总赔率比[或，（95CI）]用公布的饮酒者数据获得的估计值与非饮酒者比使用单独的StoP数据获得的高出10%[18vs.22项研究：1.21（1.07-1.36）vs.1.10（0.99-1.23）]和更多的异质性（I2：63.6%vs54.4%）。总的来说,公布的数据得出的汇总估计不太精确(标准误差高达2.6倍).漏斗图分析提示发表偏倚。
饮酒与胃癌之间的关系的荟萃分析倾向于高估影响的程度，可能是由于出版偏见。此外,个体参与者数据汇总分析对不同暴露水平或癌症亚型产生了更精确的估计.
