This commentary refers to ‘Meta-analyses of moving targets’, by C. Berry, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab359 and the discussion piece ‘Reporting data from meta-analysis: snapshot of a moving target’, by Y. Ahmad, et al., https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab681.
I thank Drs Ahmad, Howard, Madhavan, Bangalore, and Stone1 for their response to my editorial.2
Their points are very well made. Taken together, we have shared motivation to provide the community with insights into the strengths and limitations of meta-analysis.
The results of meta-analysis are a function of multiple factors, not least the available data at any moment in time. When considering the impact of a meta-analysis, plurality is also relevant. Multiple meta-analyses by different research groups may be published on a given topic, and their findings may not be coherent. These issues are less relevant to individual-patient data pooled analyses, and we agree on the value of this approach. A critical review of evidence from meta-analyses is all the more important given their prioritization to inform clinical practice guidelines.
Funding
C.B. receives research funding from the British Heart Foundation grant (PG/17/2532884; FS/17/26/32744; RE/18/6134217), Chief Scientist Office, EPSRC (EP/R511705/1, EP/S030875/1), European Union (754946-2), Medical Research Council (MR/S018905/1), and UKRI (MC/PC/20014).
Conflict of interest: C.B. is employed by the University of Glasgow which holds consultancy and research agreements for his work with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Causeway Therapeutics, Coroventis, Genentech, GSK, HeartFlow, Menarini, Neovasc, Siemens Healthcare, and Valo Health.
References
- 1. Ahmad Y, Howard JP, Madhavan MV, Bangalore S, Stone GW. Reporting data from meta-analysis: snapshot of a moving target. Eur Heart J 2022;43:699–700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Berry C. Meta-analyses of moving targets. Eur Heart J 2021;42:2655–2656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]