Original article
Validation of a meta-analysis: The effects of fish oil in rheumatoid arthritis

https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(95)00028-3Get rights and content

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to validate the results of a meta-analysis showing the efficacy of fish oil in rheumatoid arthritis with the results of a re-analysis of the complete primary data set.

A Medline search yielded seven published papers. Three additional trials were found by contacting authorities in the field.

Inclusion criteria included (1) a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, (2) use of at least one of seven predetermined outcome measures, (3) results reported for both placebo and treatment groups at baseline and follow-up, (4) randomization, and (5) parallel or cross-over design.

Papers were scored for quality. Demographic and outcomes variables were collected. For the re-analysis of the primary data, the same variables were abstracted for the 395 individual patients randomized.

The meta-analysis demonstrated that dietary fish oil supplementation for 3 months significantly reduced tender joint count (rate difference [RD][95% CI]= −2.9 [−3.8 to −2.1][p = 0.001]) and morning stiffness (RD [95% CI] = −25.9 [−44.3 to −7.5][p < 0.01]) as compared with heterogeneous dietary control oils. The re-analysis of the primary data confirmed a significant reduction in tender joint count (p = 0.001) and in morning stiffness (p < 0.02) in the parallel analysis that ignored interaction terms. The analyses that included an interaction term between site and treatment again confirmed a significant reduction in tender joint count. The results for morning stiffness were similar to the meta-analysis, but did not quite reach statistical significance (p = 0.052−0.083). The relative improvements in the other outcome variables did not reach statistical significance.

Use of fish oil improved the number of tender joints and duration of morning stiffness at 3 months as analyzed by both meta- and mega-analysis. The fuller mega-analysis confirmed the results of the meta-analysis. The advantages of mega-analysis were as follows: (1) the ability to analyze the homogeneity of the patient populations, (2) the ability to make clinically sensible adjustments in the form of the comparison, and (3) the ability to examine subsets of the data.

References (46)

  • JM Kremer et al.

    Fish-oil fatty acid supplementation in active rheumatoid arthritis

    Ann Intern Med

    (1987)
  • S Endres et al.

    The effect of dietary supplementation with ω−3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on the synthesis of interleukin-1 and TNF by mononuclear cells

    N Engl J Med

    (1989)
  • J Watson et al.

    Mechanism of action of polyunsaturated fatty acids in rheumatoid arthritis

    Biochem Soc Trans

    (1990)
  • RI Sperling et al.

    Dietary ω−3 polyunsaturated fatty acids inhibit phosphoinositide formation and chemotaxis in neutrophils

    J Clin Invest

    (1993)
  • HS Sacks et al.

    Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

    N Engl J Med

    (1987)
  • SB Thacker

    Meta-analysis. A quantitative approach to research integration

    JAMA

    (1988)
  • MJ Stampfer et al.

    Effect of intravenous streptokinase on acute myocardial infarction. Pooled results from randomized trials

    N Engl J Med

    (1982)
  • Effects of adjuvant tamoxifen and of cytotoxic therapy on mortality in early breast cancer: An overview of 61 randomized trials among 28,896 women

    N Engl J Med

    (1988)
  • Results of tamoxifen trials

  • EM Antman et al.

    A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction

    J Am Med Assoc

    (1992)
  • Secondary prevention of vascular disease by prolonged antiplatelet treatment

    Br Med J

    (1988)
  • LK Hine et al.

    Meta-analytic evidence against prophylactic use of lidocaine in acute myocardial infarction

    Arch Intern Med

    (1989)
  • SN Goodman

    Have you ever meta-analysis you didn't like?

    Ann Intern Med

    (1991)
  • Cited by (0)

    Present address: Divisions of Clinical Epidemiology and Rheumatology, Montreal General Hospital, and the Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

    Present address: Center for Health and Aging, St-Luke's Hospital, Rush Presbyterian University, Chicago, Illinois.

    View full text