A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions

Marija Barbateskovic; Thijs M Koster; Ruben J Eck; Mathias Maagaard; Arash Afshari; Maria Cronhjort; Maria L Fabritius; Josh Feinberg; Craig French; Barzi Gareb; Anja Geisler; Anders Granholm; Bart Hiemstra; Ruixue Hu; Georgina Imberger; Bente T Jensen; Andreas B Jonsson; Oliver Karam; De Zhao Kong; Steven K Korang; Geert Koster; Baoyong Lai; Ning Liang; Lars H Lundstrøm; Søren Marker; Tine S Meyhoff; Emil E Nielsen; Anders K Nørskov; Marie W Munch; Emilie C Risom; Sofie L Rygård; Sanam Safi; Naqash Sethi; Fredrik Sjövall; Susanne V Lauridsen; Nico van Bakelen; Meint Volbeda; Iwan C C van der Horst; Christian Gluud; Anders Perner; Morten H Møller; Eric Keus; Jørn Wetterslev; Willem Dieperink; Fredrike  Blokzijl

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.023

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions

Marija Barbateskovic, Thijs M Koster, Ruben J Eck, Mathias Maagaard, Arash Afshari, Maria Cronhjort, Maria L Fabritius, Josh Feinberg, Craig French, Barzi Gareb, Anja Geisler, Anders Granholm, Bart Hiemstra, Ruixue Hu, Georgina Imberger, Bente T Jensen, Andreas B Jonsson, Oliver Karam, De Zhao Kong, Steven K KorangGeert Koster, Baoyong Lai, Ning Liang, Lars H Lundstrøm, Søren Marker, Tine S Meyhoff, Emil E Nielsen, Anders K Nørskov, Marie W Munch, Emilie C Risom, Sofie L Rygård, Sanam Safi, Naqash Sethi, Fredrik Sjövall, Susanne V Lauridsen, Nico van Bakelen, Meint Volbeda, Iwan C C van der Horst, Christian Gluud, Anders Perner, Morten H Møller, Eric Keus, Jørn Wetterslev, Willem Dieperink, Fredrike Blokzijl

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups.

RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters.

CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	29-41
Number of pages	13
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	135
Early online date	6 Feb 2021
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.023
Publication status	Published - 1 Jul 2021
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

diversity
heterogeneity
tools
meta-analysis
evidence
quality
systematic review

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.023

Cite this

Barbateskovic, M., Koster, T. M., Eck, R. J., Maagaard, M., Afshari, A., Cronhjort, M., Fabritius, M. L., Feinberg, J., French, C., Gareb, B., Geisler, A., Granholm, A., Hiemstra, B., Hu, R., Imberger, G., Jensen, B. T., Jonsson, A. B., Karam, O., Kong, D. Z., ... Blokzijl, F. (2021). A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 135, 29-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.023

@article{9b7ff11fd1db43a490e6aa77e0394f88,

title = "A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions",

abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups.RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters.CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.",

keywords = "diversiteit, heterogeniteit, meta-analyse, evidentie, kwaliteit, systematische review, diversity, heterogeneity, tools, meta-analysis, evidence, quality, systematic review",

author = "Marija Barbateskovic and Koster, {Thijs M} and Eck, {Ruben J} and Mathias Maagaard and Arash Afshari and Maria Cronhjort and Fabritius, {Maria L} and Josh Feinberg and Craig French and Barzi Gareb and Anja Geisler and Anders Granholm and Bart Hiemstra and Ruixue Hu and Georgina Imberger and Jensen, {Bente T} and Jonsson, {Andreas B} and Oliver Karam and Kong, {De Zhao} and Korang, {Steven K} and Geert Koster and Baoyong Lai and Ning Liang and Lundstr{\o}m, {Lars H} and S{\o}ren Marker and Meyhoff, {Tine S} and Nielsen, {Emil E} and N{\o}rskov, {Anders K} and Munch, {Marie W} and Risom, {Emilie C} and Ryg{\aa}rd, {Sofie L} and Sanam Safi and Naqash Sethi and Fredrik Sj{\"o}vall and Lauridsen, {Susanne V} and {van Bakelen}, Nico and Meint Volbeda and {van der Horst}, {Iwan C C} and Christian Gluud and Anders Perner and M{\o}ller, {Morten H} and Eric Keus and J{\o}rn Wetterslev and Willem Dieperink and Fredrike Blokzijl",

year = "2021",

month = jul,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.023",

language = "English",

volume = "135",

pages = "29--41",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier Science",

}

Barbateskovic, M, Koster, TM, Eck, RJ, Maagaard, M, Afshari, A, Cronhjort, M, Fabritius, ML, Feinberg, J, French, C, Gareb, B, Geisler, A, Granholm, A, Hiemstra, B, Hu, R, Imberger, G, Jensen, BT, Jonsson, AB, Karam, O, Kong, DZ, Korang, SK, Koster, G, Lai, B, Liang, N, Lundstrøm, LH, Marker, S, Meyhoff, TS, Nielsen, EE, Nørskov, AK, Munch, MW, Risom, EC, Rygård, SL, Safi, S, Sethi, N, Sjövall, F, Lauridsen, SV, van Bakelen, N, Volbeda, M, van der Horst, ICC, Gluud, C, Perner, A, Møller, MH, Keus, E, Wetterslev, J, Dieperink, W & Blokzijl, F 2021, 'A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 135, pp. 29-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.023

TY - JOUR

T1 - A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions

AU - Barbateskovic, Marija

AU - Koster, Thijs M

AU - Eck, Ruben J

AU - Maagaard, Mathias

AU - Afshari, Arash

AU - Cronhjort, Maria

AU - Fabritius, Maria L

AU - Feinberg, Josh

AU - French, Craig

AU - Gareb, Barzi

AU - Geisler, Anja

AU - Granholm, Anders

AU - Hiemstra, Bart

AU - Hu, Ruixue

AU - Imberger, Georgina

AU - Jensen, Bente T

AU - Jonsson, Andreas B

AU - Karam, Oliver

AU - Kong, De Zhao

AU - Korang, Steven K

AU - Koster, Geert

AU - Lai, Baoyong

AU - Liang, Ning

AU - Lundstrøm, Lars H

AU - Marker, Søren

AU - Meyhoff, Tine S

AU - Nielsen, Emil E

AU - Nørskov, Anders K

AU - Munch, Marie W

AU - Risom, Emilie C

AU - Rygård, Sofie L

AU - Safi, Sanam

AU - Sethi, Naqash

AU - Sjövall, Fredrik

AU - Lauridsen, Susanne V

AU - van Bakelen, Nico

AU - Volbeda, Meint

AU - van der Horst, Iwan C C

AU - Gluud, Christian

AU - Perner, Anders

AU - Møller, Morten H

AU - Keus, Eric

AU - Wetterslev, Jørn

AU - Dieperink, Willem

AU - Blokzijl, Fredrike

PY - 2021/7/1

Y1 - 2021/7/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups.RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters.CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups.RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters.CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.

KW - diversiteit

KW - heterogeniteit

KW - meta-analyse

KW - evidentie

KW - kwaliteit

KW - systematische review

KW - diversity

KW - heterogeneity

KW - tools

KW - meta-analysis

KW - evidence

KW - quality

KW - systematic review

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/1962d563-707f-3cdf-bf5a-5fec19d60d91/

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.023

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.023

M3 - Article

C2 - 33561529

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 135

SP - 29

EP - 41

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ER -

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this