2020
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.22226.2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Methods used to meta-analyse results from interrupted time series studies: A methodological systematic review protocol

Abstract: Background: Systematic reviews are used to inform healthcare decision making. In reviews that aim to examine the effects of organisational, policy change or public health interventions, or exposures, evidence from interrupted time series (ITS) studies may be included. A core component of many systematic reviews is meta-analysis, which is the statistical synthesis of results across studies. There is currently a lack of guidance informing the choice of meta-analysis methods for combining results from ITS studies… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

3
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Each meta‐analysis was comprised of multiple ITS studies, and therefore the data generation process involved generating data for each of the multiple ITS studies within each meta‐analysis. Meta‐analyses were generated with 3, 5 or 20 included ITS studies, to reflect the size of meta‐analyses seen in real‐world datasets [a median of 7 ITS (IQR: 6–10)], 55 and to include scenarios where estimation of between‐study variance is likely to be suboptimal (few studies, 3 ITS) and likely to be more accurate (many studies 20 ITS). Furthermore, to incorporate heterogeneity, level changes of the ITS studies within each meta‐analysis were generated with a between‐study variance of τ22= 0, 0.1, 2 0.3 2 and the slope changes with a between‐study variance of τ32= 0, 0.01, 2 0.05 28,17 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each meta‐analysis was comprised of multiple ITS studies, and therefore the data generation process involved generating data for each of the multiple ITS studies within each meta‐analysis. Meta‐analyses were generated with 3, 5 or 20 included ITS studies, to reflect the size of meta‐analyses seen in real‐world datasets [a median of 7 ITS (IQR: 6–10)], 55 and to include scenarios where estimation of between‐study variance is likely to be suboptimal (few studies, 3 ITS) and likely to be more accurate (many studies 20 ITS). Furthermore, to incorporate heterogeneity, level changes of the ITS studies within each meta‐analysis were generated with a between‐study variance of τ22= 0, 0.1, 2 0.3 2 and the slope changes with a between‐study variance of τ32= 0, 0.01, 2 0.05 28,17 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Empirical study 2 -Korevaar et al (13): We sourced 283 ITS datasets from 17 meta-analyses (included in 17 reviews investigating the impacts of, primarily, public health interruptions) that included results from at least two ITS studies. Full details of the methods used to select reviews, meta-analyses, and studies are available in Korevaar et al (10,21). We sourced the ITS datasets using the same methods as for Turner et al (16).…”
Section: Description Of How the Its Datasets Were Sourcedmentioning
confidence: 99%