BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate empirically how crossover trial results are analysed in meta-analyses of randomized evidence and whether their results agree with parallel arm studies on the same questions. METHODS: We used a systematic sample of Cochrane meta-analyses including crossover trials. We evaluated the methods of analysis for crossover results and compared the concordance of the estimated effect sizes in crossover vs parallel arm trials. RESULTS: Of 334 screened reviews, 62 had crossover trials. Of those, 33 meta-analyses performed quantitative syntheses involving two-arm two-period crossover trials. There was large variability on how these trials were analysed; only one of the 33 meta-analyses stated that they used the data from both the first and second period with an appropriate paired approach. Nine meta-analyses used the first period data only and 14 gave no information at all on what they had done. Twenty-eight meta-analyses had both crossover (n = 137, sample size n = 7,162) and parallel arm (n = 132, sample size n = 11,398) trials. Effect sizes correlated well with the two types of designs (rho = 0.72). Differences on whether the summary effect had a P < 0.05 or not were common due to limited sample sizes. The summary relative odds ratio for parallel arm vs crossover designs for favourable outcomes was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.74-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Crossover designs may contribute evidence in a fifth of systematic reviews, but few meta-analyses make use of their full data. The results of crossover trials tend to agree with those of parallel arm trials, although there was a trend for more conservative treatment effect estimates in parallel arm trials.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate empirically how crossover trial results are analysed in meta-analyses of randomized evidence and whether their results agree with parallel arm studies on the same questions. METHODS: We used a systematic sample of Cochrane meta-analyses including crossover trials. We evaluated the methods of analysis for crossover results and compared the concordance of the estimated effect sizes in crossover vs parallel arm trials. RESULTS: Of 334 screened reviews, 62 had crossover trials. Of those, 33 meta-analyses performed quantitative syntheses involving two-arm two-period crossover trials. There was large variability on how these trials were analysed; only one of the 33 meta-analyses stated that they used the data from both the first and second period with an appropriate paired approach. Nine meta-analyses used the first period data only and 14 gave no information at all on what they had done. Twenty-eight meta-analyses had both crossover (n = 137, sample size n = 7,162) and parallel arm (n = 132, sample size n = 11,398) trials. Effect sizes correlated well with the two types of designs (rho = 0.72). Differences on whether the summary effect had a P < 0.05 or not were common due to limited sample sizes. The summary relative odds ratio for parallel arm vs crossover designs for favourable outcomes was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.74-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Crossover designs may contribute evidence in a fifth of systematic reviews, but few meta-analyses make use of their full data. The results of crossover trials tend to agree with those of parallel arm trials, although there was a trend for more conservative treatment effect estimates in parallel arm trials.
Authors: An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman; Howard Mann; Jesse A Berlin; Kay Dickersin; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Kenneth F Schulz; Wendy R Parulekar; Karmela Krleza-Jeric; Andreas Laupacis; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-01-08
Authors: George Apostol; Walid Abi-Saab; Christopher J Kratochvil; Lenard A Adler; Weining Z Robieson; Laura M Gault; Yili L Pritchett; David Feifel; Michelle A Collins; Mario D Saltarelli Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: D David Wang; John L Sievenpiper; Russell J de Souza; Laura Chiavaroli; Vanessa Ha; Adrian I Cozma; Arash Mirrahimi; Matthew E Yu; Amanda J Carleton; Marco Di Buono; Alexandra L Jenkins; Lawrence A Leiter; Thomas M S Wolever; Joseph Beyene; Cyril W C Kendall; David J A Jenkins Journal: J Nutr Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Ian Young; Lisa Waddell; Shannon Harding; Judy Greig; Mariola Mascarenhas; Bhairavi Sivaramalingam; Mai T Pham; Andrew Papadopoulos Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Bonnie L Blazer-Yost; Robert L Bacallao; Bradley J Erickson; Michelle L LaPradd; Marie E Edwards; Nehal Sheth; Kim Swinney; Kristen M Ponsler-Sipes; Ranjani N Moorthi; Susan M Perkins; Vicente E Torres; Sharon M Moe Journal: Clin Kidney J Date: 2021-01-26