Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Studies have been described in the literature that examine associations between study characteristics and predefined outcomes, e.g. the association between methodological flaws and the magnitude of treatment effect. These studies are essentially analogous to typical observational-epidemiological designs with patients, and are therefore referred to as meta-epidemiological (henceforth: meta-epi) studies. In a meta-epi study, a study is the unit of analysis. Meta-epidemiology provides empirical evidence for bias and informs the development of new research methods. Just like the studies that are subjects of meta-epidemiology, meta-epi studies are probably also susceptible to bias. However, guidance on how to critically appraise such studies is scarce. In this workshop, we aim to discuss with the participants what constitutes bias in meta-epi studies, in order to gain a clearer idea of which types of bias may exist, and to apply the newly obtained knowledge to critically appraise and to better conduct meta-epi studies.
Objectives:
1) To share knowledge and perspectives on what constitutes bias in meta-epidemiological studies and to discuss strategies to avoid any biases.
2) To identify practical challenges in conducting a meta-epidemiological study.
Description:
The primary target audience is anyone interested in research on research, regardless of level of experience with meta-epi studies. The workshop will start with an introduction to the concept of meta-epidemiology. We will also present preliminary data from a literature survey of meta-epi studies to illustrate the range of meta-epi study characteristics. This will be followed by a more interactive session, in which we will engage participants with questions using one or multiple formats, e.g. a round table discussion, a survey, an electronic voting session or a brainstorming session in smaller groups. Some text examples will be provided from existing meta-epi studies to facilitate discussion. A summary of the most important findings during the workshop will be shared with all participants by email after the workshop.
Studies have been described in the literature that examine associations between study characteristics and predefined outcomes, e.g. the association between methodological flaws and the magnitude of treatment effect. These studies are essentially analogous to typical observational-epidemiological designs with patients, and are therefore referred to as meta-epidemiological (henceforth: meta-epi) studies. In a meta-epi study, a study is the unit of analysis. Meta-epidemiology provides empirical evidence for bias and informs the development of new research methods. Just like the studies that are subjects of meta-epidemiology, meta-epi studies are probably also susceptible to bias. However, guidance on how to critically appraise such studies is scarce. In this workshop, we aim to discuss with the participants what constitutes bias in meta-epi studies, in order to gain a clearer idea of which types of bias may exist, and to apply the newly obtained knowledge to critically appraise and to better conduct meta-epi studies.
Objectives:
1) To share knowledge and perspectives on what constitutes bias in meta-epidemiological studies and to discuss strategies to avoid any biases.
2) To identify practical challenges in conducting a meta-epidemiological study.
Description:
The primary target audience is anyone interested in research on research, regardless of level of experience with meta-epi studies. The workshop will start with an introduction to the concept of meta-epidemiology. We will also present preliminary data from a literature survey of meta-epi studies to illustrate the range of meta-epi study characteristics. This will be followed by a more interactive session, in which we will engage participants with questions using one or multiple formats, e.g. a round table discussion, a survey, an electronic voting session or a brainstorming session in smaller groups. Some text examples will be provided from existing meta-epi studies to facilitate discussion. A summary of the most important findings during the workshop will be shared with all participants by email after the workshop.