Assessing the Interpretability of Different Pooling Methods Within a Meta-Analysis

• Activity Number: 556
• Type: Contributed
• Date/Time: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 : 10:30 AM to 12:20 PM
• Sponsor: SSC
• Author(s): Victoria Borg Debono* and Jason Busse and Li Wang and Lehana Thabane and Rachel Couban
• Companies: McMaster University and McMaster University and McMaster University and McMaster University and McMaster University
• Keywords: Meta-Analysis ; Pooling Outcome Measures ; Pooling Methods ; Systematic Review ; Clinical Trials

Abstract

This project compares five different ways of pooling and presenting a continuous outcome measured within an meta-analysis, with a focus on pain as the outcome of interest, to see which pooling method produces the most interpretable effect size result. Currently, presenting pooled outcomes in meta-analyses is challenging when included trials use different instruments to measure the same construct, and the objective is to produce an overall summary statistic to showcase which treatment is more effective. For the purpose of this project, a systematic review of the literature was done to scope out all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of low level laser therapy in alleviating pain for those with temporal mandibular disorder (TMD). Data was extracted from all eligible TMD RCTs. From those RCTs included, we pooled the continuous patient important outcome of pain in five different ways and assessed how each pooled measure for pain can be interpreted by those wanting to use the information for clinical decision making.