Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

The authors respond to “Assessing methodologic quality of a meta-analysis on managing chronic disease in older adults”

Monika Kastner, Sharon E. Straus, Jemila Hamid, Noah Ivers and Jayna Holroyd-Leduc
CMAJ June 03, 2019 191 (22) E618; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.72408
Monika Kastner
Research chair, Knowledge Translation and Implementation, Office of Research and Innovation, North York General Hospital; associate professor, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sharon E. Straus
Clinician scientist and professor, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jemila Hamid
Assistant professor, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa; senior biostatistician, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Noah Ivers
Scientist, Women’s College Hospital; assistant professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jayna Holroyd-Leduc
Section chief and professor, Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We thank Dr. Bidhendi Yarandi for the letter about our CMAJ article on the effectiveness of interventions for managing multiple high-burden chronic diseases in older adults.1,2 We appreciate the interest in our systematic review and the assessment of its methodological quality using the AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) appraisal tool.3 The items identified pertain to details of the systematic review methods that were not included in our published manuscript because of journal constraints on article length, so we welcome the opportunity to share these details in this letter. We disagree with Dr. Bidhendi Yarandi’s conclusion that our study is low quality.

First, conducting a systematic review of complex interventions is challenging given the expected heterogeneity across studies. This is even more challenging for complex interventions that integrate the care of multiple chronic conditions. We are the first to identify and make sense of multimorbidity interventions that were deliberately created for older adults with a particular combination of disease dyads or triads (rather than a single disease). As such, we worked very hard to assess all of the clinical (variability in participants, interventions and outcomes), methodological (variability in the study design and risk of bias) and statistical (variability in intervention effects) heterogeneity. 4 This included an innovative assessment to determine which intervention components or combination of components contributed to the observed heterogeneity and their impact for which specific disease dyads or triads and for which outcomes. Such an extensive examination of heterogeneity allowed us to decide which studies were deemed the most appropriate to pool in a meta-analysis, which is rarely done.

Not surprisingly, we identified substantial heterogeneity among our 21 included trials, which varied widely in their disease combinations, intervention components and outcomes. We identified 8 trials as appropriate to contribute to our meta-analyses across our primary and secondary outcomes. However, most of these meta-analyses included 2 studies only,2 which precluded any further assessment of publication bias or effect of risk of bias. Additionally, most of our studies had low risk of bias for most factors,2 making any further subgroup analyses redundant.

Lastly, although reporting findings using prediction intervals in a random effects model has been recently suggested to enhance the clinical meaning of findings, 5 we did not consider it because it’s not specifically recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions4 and the estimate is imprecise if based on only a few studies.5

Overall, our systematic review was rigorously planned and executed as per Cochrane standards.4 Additionally, we advanced the knowledge of conducting a rigorous systematic review of complex interventions by applying an intervention deconstruction strategy that allowed us to generate a more appropriate and meaningful estimation of impact from our meta-analyses.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bidhendi Yarandi R
    . Assessing methodologic quality of a meta-analysis on managing chronic disease in older adults [letter]. CMAJ 2019;191: E617.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Kastner M,
    2. Cardoso R,
    3. Lai Y,
    4. et al
    . Effectiveness of interventions for managing multiple high-burden chronic diseases in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2018; 190:E1004–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Shea BJ,
    2. Reeves BC,
    3. Wells G,
    4. et al
    . AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Higgins J,
    2. Green S
    , editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Oxford (UK): The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
  5. ↵
    1. IntHout J,
    2. Ioannidis JPA,
    3. Rovers MM,
    4. et al
    . Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010247.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 191 (22)
CMAJ
Vol. 191, Issue 22
3 Jun 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The authors respond to “Assessing methodologic quality of a meta-analysis on managing chronic disease in older adults”
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The authors respond to “Assessing methodologic quality of a meta-analysis on managing chronic disease in older adults”
Monika Kastner, Sharon E. Straus, Jemila Hamid, Noah Ivers, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc
CMAJ Jun 2019, 191 (22) E618; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.72408

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
The authors respond to “Assessing methodologic quality of a meta-analysis on managing chronic disease in older adults”
Monika Kastner, Sharon E. Straus, Jemila Hamid, Noah Ivers, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc
CMAJ Jun 2019, 191 (22) E618; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.72408
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Assessing methodologic quality of a meta-analysis on managing chronic disease in older adults
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Dare we hope
  • Coexisting failures do not diminish the stature of a giant
  • Highlighting obesity as a risk factor for endometrial cancer
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire