An attempt to reproduce a previous metaanalysis and a new analysis regarding the impact of directly observed therapy on tuberculosis treatment outcomes

Brian McKay, Maria Castellanos, Mark H. Ebell, Christopher C. Whalen, Andreas Handel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Directly observed therapy (DOT) is almost universally used for the treatment of TB. Several meta-analyses using different methods have assessed the effectiveness of DOT compared to self-administered therapy (SAT). The results of these meta-analyses often conflict with some concluding DOT is superior and others that there is little or no difference. Meta-analyses can guide policymaking, but such analyses must be reliable. To assess the validity of a previous meta-analysis, we tried to reproduce it. We encountered problems with the previous analysis that did not allow for a meaningful reproduction. We describe the issues we encountered here. We then performed a new meta-analysis comparing the treatment outcomes of adults given treatment with SAT versus DOT. Outcomes in the new analysis are loss to follow-up, treatment failure, cure, treatment completed, and all-cause mortality. All data, documentation, and code used to generate our results is provided. Our new analysis included four randomized and three observational studies with 1603 and 1626 individuals respectively. The pooled relative risks (RR) are as follows: Lost to follow-up (RR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.9, 1.7), Treatment Failure (RR = 1.1, 95% CI 0.6, 2), Cure (RR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.8, 1.1), Treatment Completion (RR = 1, 95% CI 0.9, 1.1), Mortality (RR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.6, 1.3). Based on data from our new meta-analysis, the magnitude of the difference between DOT and SAT for all reported outcomes is small, and none of the differences are statistically significant.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere0217219
JournalPloS one
Volume14
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2019

Fingerprint

Directly Observed Therapy
tuberculosis
Tuberculosis
relative risk
Meta-Analysis
therapeutics
meta-analysis
Treatment Failure
Therapeutics
Mortality
Lost to Follow-Up
Documentation
observational studies
Observational Studies
Reproduction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

An attempt to reproduce a previous metaanalysis and a new analysis regarding the impact of directly observed therapy on tuberculosis treatment outcomes. / McKay, Brian; Castellanos, Maria; Ebell, Mark H.; Whalen, Christopher C.; Handel, Andreas.

In: PloS one, Vol. 14, No. 5, e0217219, 01.05.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McKay, Brian ; Castellanos, Maria ; Ebell, Mark H. ; Whalen, Christopher C. ; Handel, Andreas. / An attempt to reproduce a previous metaanalysis and a new analysis regarding the impact of directly observed therapy on tuberculosis treatment outcomes. In: PloS one. 2019 ; Vol. 14, No. 5.
@article{77df4efe35fa4af6a31bdd3da30ebed7,
title = "An attempt to reproduce a previous metaanalysis and a new analysis regarding the impact of directly observed therapy on tuberculosis treatment outcomes",
abstract = "Directly observed therapy (DOT) is almost universally used for the treatment of TB. Several meta-analyses using different methods have assessed the effectiveness of DOT compared to self-administered therapy (SAT). The results of these meta-analyses often conflict with some concluding DOT is superior and others that there is little or no difference. Meta-analyses can guide policymaking, but such analyses must be reliable. To assess the validity of a previous meta-analysis, we tried to reproduce it. We encountered problems with the previous analysis that did not allow for a meaningful reproduction. We describe the issues we encountered here. We then performed a new meta-analysis comparing the treatment outcomes of adults given treatment with SAT versus DOT. Outcomes in the new analysis are loss to follow-up, treatment failure, cure, treatment completed, and all-cause mortality. All data, documentation, and code used to generate our results is provided. Our new analysis included four randomized and three observational studies with 1603 and 1626 individuals respectively. The pooled relative risks (RR) are as follows: Lost to follow-up (RR = 1.2, 95{\%} CI 0.9, 1.7), Treatment Failure (RR = 1.1, 95{\%} CI 0.6, 2), Cure (RR = 0.9, 95{\%} CI 0.8, 1.1), Treatment Completion (RR = 1, 95{\%} CI 0.9, 1.1), Mortality (RR = 0.9, 95{\%} CI 0.6, 1.3). Based on data from our new meta-analysis, the magnitude of the difference between DOT and SAT for all reported outcomes is small, and none of the differences are statistically significant.",
author = "Brian McKay and Maria Castellanos and Ebell, {Mark H.} and Whalen, {Christopher C.} and Andreas Handel",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0217219",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An attempt to reproduce a previous metaanalysis and a new analysis regarding the impact of directly observed therapy on tuberculosis treatment outcomes

AU - McKay, Brian

AU - Castellanos, Maria

AU - Ebell, Mark H.

AU - Whalen, Christopher C.

AU - Handel, Andreas

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - Directly observed therapy (DOT) is almost universally used for the treatment of TB. Several meta-analyses using different methods have assessed the effectiveness of DOT compared to self-administered therapy (SAT). The results of these meta-analyses often conflict with some concluding DOT is superior and others that there is little or no difference. Meta-analyses can guide policymaking, but such analyses must be reliable. To assess the validity of a previous meta-analysis, we tried to reproduce it. We encountered problems with the previous analysis that did not allow for a meaningful reproduction. We describe the issues we encountered here. We then performed a new meta-analysis comparing the treatment outcomes of adults given treatment with SAT versus DOT. Outcomes in the new analysis are loss to follow-up, treatment failure, cure, treatment completed, and all-cause mortality. All data, documentation, and code used to generate our results is provided. Our new analysis included four randomized and three observational studies with 1603 and 1626 individuals respectively. The pooled relative risks (RR) are as follows: Lost to follow-up (RR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.9, 1.7), Treatment Failure (RR = 1.1, 95% CI 0.6, 2), Cure (RR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.8, 1.1), Treatment Completion (RR = 1, 95% CI 0.9, 1.1), Mortality (RR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.6, 1.3). Based on data from our new meta-analysis, the magnitude of the difference between DOT and SAT for all reported outcomes is small, and none of the differences are statistically significant.

AB - Directly observed therapy (DOT) is almost universally used for the treatment of TB. Several meta-analyses using different methods have assessed the effectiveness of DOT compared to self-administered therapy (SAT). The results of these meta-analyses often conflict with some concluding DOT is superior and others that there is little or no difference. Meta-analyses can guide policymaking, but such analyses must be reliable. To assess the validity of a previous meta-analysis, we tried to reproduce it. We encountered problems with the previous analysis that did not allow for a meaningful reproduction. We describe the issues we encountered here. We then performed a new meta-analysis comparing the treatment outcomes of adults given treatment with SAT versus DOT. Outcomes in the new analysis are loss to follow-up, treatment failure, cure, treatment completed, and all-cause mortality. All data, documentation, and code used to generate our results is provided. Our new analysis included four randomized and three observational studies with 1603 and 1626 individuals respectively. The pooled relative risks (RR) are as follows: Lost to follow-up (RR = 1.2, 95% CI 0.9, 1.7), Treatment Failure (RR = 1.1, 95% CI 0.6, 2), Cure (RR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.8, 1.1), Treatment Completion (RR = 1, 95% CI 0.9, 1.1), Mortality (RR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.6, 1.3). Based on data from our new meta-analysis, the magnitude of the difference between DOT and SAT for all reported outcomes is small, and none of the differences are statistically significant.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066259486&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85066259486&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0217219

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0217219

M3 - Article

C2 - 31120965

AN - SCOPUS:85066259486

VL - 14

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 5

M1 - e0217219

ER -