Literature DB >> 3423497

Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. II: Replicate variability and comparison of studies that agree and disagree.

T C Chalmers1, J Berrier, H S Sacks, H Levin, D Reitman, R Nagalingam.   

Abstract

The replicate variability of meta-analyses of controlled clinical trials has been assessed as a measure of scientific precision. 46 of 91 known meta-analysis papers were divided into 20 cohorts of studies of the same therapies. Ten cohorts contained meta-analyses with different statistical conclusions; 14 contained differing clinical conclusions with a wider spread than the statistically differing studies. Possible causes of variability, such as different trials included, different policies regarding the inclusion of non-randomized and unpublished trials, and different statistical methodologies, were not obvious causes of differing conclusions. Further work in this area should include multivariate analyses in order to explore possible interactions in the factors accounting for the variability found in replicate meta-analyses.

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3423497     DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780060704

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  16 in total

1.  Meta-analysis: a tool for medical and scientific discoveries.

Authors:  C L Schell; R J Rathe
Journal:  Bull Med Libr Assoc       Date:  1992-07

2.  Meta-analysis and quality of evidence in the economic evaluation of drug trials.

Authors:  R J Simes; P P Glasziou
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  The potential and limitations of meta-analysis.

Authors:  T D Spector; S G Thompson
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 4.  Systematic review and cost analysis comparing use of chlorhexidine with use of iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis to prevent surgical site infection.

Authors:  Ingi Lee; Rajender K Agarwal; Bruce Y Lee; Neil O Fishman; Craig A Umscheid
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 3.254

Review 5.  Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study.

Authors:  Giuseppe G L Biondi-Zoccai; Marzia Lotrionte; Antonio Abbate; Luca Testa; Enrico Remigi; Francesco Burzotta; Marco Valgimigli; Enrico Romagnoli; Filippo Crea; Pierfrancesco Agostoni
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-01-16

Review 6.  Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review.

Authors:  Anders W Jørgensen; Jørgen Hilden; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-10-06

Review 7.  Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Veronica Yank; Drummond Rennie; Lisa A Bero
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-11-16

8.  Comment on: "Desideratum for evidence-based epidemiology".

Authors:  Sean Hennessy; Charles E Leonard
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 5.606

9.  Thomas C Chalmers (1917-1995): a pioneer of randomised clinical trials and systematic reviews.

Authors:  Kay Dickersin; Frances Chalmers
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  How to find a meta-analysis you can trust.

Authors:  R L Nelson
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 3.781

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.