论文部分内容阅读
Background Different confounder adjustment strategies were used to estimate odds ratios(ORs)in case-control study,.i.e.how many confounders that original studies adjusted and what the variables are.This secondary data analysis is aimed to detect whether there are potential biases caused by difference of confounding factor adjustment strategies in case-control study,and whether such bias would impact the summary effect size of meta-analysis.Methods We included all meta-analyses that focused on the association between breast cancer and passive smoking among non-smoking women,as well as each original case-control studies included in these meta-analyses.The relative deviations(RDs)of each original study were calculated to detect how magnitude the adjustment would impact the estimation of ORs,compared with crude ORs.At the same time,a scatter diagram was sketched to describe the distribution of adjusted ORs with different number of adjusted confounders.Results Substantial inconsistency existed.in meta-analysis of case-control studies,which would influent the precision of the summary effect size.First,mixed unadjusted and adjusted ORs were used to combine individual OR in majority of meta-analysis.Second,original studies with different adjustment strategies of confounders were combined,i.e.the number of adjusted confounders and different factors being adjusted in each original study.Third,adjustment did not make the effect size of original studies trend to constringency,which suggested that model fitting might failed to correct the systematic error caused by confounding.Conclusions The heterogeneity of confounder adjustment strategies in case-control studies may lead to further bias for summary effect size in meta-analyses,especially for weak or medium association so that the direction of causal inference would be even reversed.Therefore,further methodological researches are needed,referring to the assessment of confounder adjustment strategies,as well as how to take this kind of bias into consideration when drawing conclusion based on summary estimation of meta-analyses.