Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 8520950

Meta-analyses or collaborative studies.

Abstract

In decision making, it is often necessary to select between different strategies, and the best decision relies heavily on precise quantitative estimates of risks and benefits of the different strategies. To make such estimates, large samples are needed, but large studies are very expensive and difficult to conduct, especially studies that involve several centers, often in different countries. Before such a study is initiated, other options should be fully explored; if data already exist, it may be possible to combine results into a single estimate. A meta-analysis may be easy to do, but it is difficult to do well; sometimes, a meta-analysis may be grossly misleading. Some of the options and pitfalls in doing a meta-analysis are revealed in the text. The options for a meta-analysis should be considered before a megastudy is launched, and meta-analyses are often a useful way of introducing past experience into inference making.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Olsen. 1995. Meta-analyses or collaborative studies.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-199508000-00002

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias