Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare? - PubMed
Review
. 1996 Oct;276(16):1332-8.
Affiliations
- PMID: 8861993
Review
Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare?
J C Cappelleri et al. JAMA. 1996 Oct.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the results of large clinical trials vs the pooled results of smaller trials.
Data identification: Meta-analyses with at least 1 "large" study were identified from the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database and from MEDLINE (1966-1995).
Study selection: We used a sample size approach to select 79 meta-analyses with at least 1 large study of 1000 or more patients. We used a statistical power approach to select 61 meta-analyses with at least 1 large study based on statistical power considerations.
Data extraction: The outcome of interest for each meta-analysis was the primary one stated in the original publication or, when not clearly specified, was decided on clinically.
Data synthesis: By random effects calculations, we found agreement between large and smaller trials in 90% of the meta-analyses selected by the sample size approach and in 82% of the meta-analyses selected by the statistical power approach. Twice as many disagreements appeared when the variability among large studies and among smaller studies was not considered (ie, fixed effects calculations). Of the 15 disagreements between results of large and smaller trials using the random effects model, plausible explanations were identified in 10 meta-analyses: 5 with differences in the control rate of events between large and smaller trials, 4 with specific protocol or study differences, and 1 with potential publication bias. Two other disagreements were not clinically important, and tentative reasons could be identified for 2 of the remaining 3 disagreements.
Conclusions: Results of smaller studies are usually compatible with the results of large studies, but discrepancies do occur even when the diversity among both large studies and smaller studies is considered. Clinically important differences without a potential explanation are extremely uncommon. Future research should further examine sources of heterogeneity between the results of large and smaller trials.
Comment in
-
Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials.
Klebanoff MA, Levine RJ, DerSimonian R. Klebanoff MA, et al. JAMA. 1997 Feb 5;277(5):376-7; author reply 377-8. JAMA. 1997. PMID: 9010166 No abstract available.
-
Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials.
Johnson BT, Carey MP, Muellerleile PA. Johnson BT, et al. JAMA. 1997 Feb 5;277(5):377; author reply 377-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.277.5.377. JAMA. 1997. PMID: 9010167 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of large versus smaller randomized trials for mental health-related interventions.
Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Gilbody SM, Trikalinos TA, Churchill R, Wahlbeck K, Ioannidis JP. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Mar;162(3):578-84. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.3.578. Am J Psychiatry. 2005. PMID: 15741476
-
[Meta-analysis of the Italian studies on short-term effects of air pollution].
Biggeri A, Bellini P, Terracini B; Italian MISA Group. Biggeri A, et al. Epidemiol Prev. 2001 Mar-Apr;25(2 Suppl):1-71. Epidemiol Prev. 2001. PMID: 11515188 Italian.
-
Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Sterne JA, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Nov;53(11):1119-29. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00242-0. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000. PMID: 11106885
-
Pereira TV, Ioannidis JP. Pereira TV, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Oct;64(10):1060-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.012. Epub 2011 Mar 31. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011. PMID: 21454050 Review.
-
Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis.
Ioannidis JP. Ioannidis JP. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008 Oct;14(5):951-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.00986.x. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008. PMID: 19018930 Review.
Cited by
-
Shaffer HJ, Hall MN. Shaffer HJ, et al. Can J Public Health. 2001 May-Jun;92(3):168-72. doi: 10.1007/BF03404298. Can J Public Health. 2001. PMID: 11496623 Free PMC article.
-
Cheng CR, Sessler DI, Apfel CC. Cheng CR, et al. Anesth Analg. 2005 Nov;101(5):1349-1355. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000180992.76743.C9. Anesth Analg. 2005. PMID: 16243993 Free PMC article.
-
Systematic reviews in cystic fibrosis.
Smyth RL, Cheng K, Motley J. Smyth RL, et al. J R Soc Med. 1998;91 Suppl 34(Suppl 34):19-24. doi: 10.1177/014107689809134S04. J R Soc Med. 1998. PMID: 9709384 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Agreement Between Mega-Trials and Smaller Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Research Analysis.
Kastrati L, Raeisi-Dehkordi H, Llanaj E, Quezada-Pinedo HG, Khatami F, Ahanchi NS, Llane A, Meçani R, Muka T, Ioannidis JPA. Kastrati L, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Sep 3;7(9):e2432296. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.32296. JAMA Netw Open. 2024. PMID: 39240561 Free PMC article.
-
Puhan MA, Scharplatz M, Troosters T, Steurer J. Puhan MA, et al. Respir Res. 2005 Jun 8;6(1):54. doi: 10.1186/1465-9921-6-54. Respir Res. 2005. PMID: 15943867 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical