Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials

被引:887
|
作者
LeLorier, J [1 ]
Gregoire, G [1 ]
Benhaddad, A [1 ]
Lapierre, J [1 ]
Derderian, F [1 ]
机构
[1] UNIV MONTREAL, FAC MED, DEPT MED, MONTREAL, PQ H3C 3J7, CANADA
来源
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE | 1997年 / 337卷 / 08期
关键词
D O I
10.1056/NEJM199708213370806
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Meta-analyses are now widely used to provide evidence to support clinical strategies. However, large randomized, controlled trials are considered the gold standard in evaluating the efficacy of clinical interventions. Methods We compared the results of large randomized, controlled trials (involving 1000 patients or more) that were published in four journals (the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association) with the results of meta-analyses published earlier on the same topics. Regarding the principal and secondary outcomes, we judged whether the findings of the randomized trials agreed with those of the corresponding meta-analyses, and we determined whether the study results were positive (indicating that treatment improved the outcome) or negative (indicating that the outcome with treatment was the same or worse than without it) at the conventional level of statistical significance (P<0.05). Results We identified 12 large randomized, controlled trials and 19 meta-analyses addressing the same questions. For a total of 40 primary and secondary outcomes, agreement between the meta-analyses and the large clinical trials was only fair (kappa = 0.35; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.64). The positive predictive value of the meta-analyses was 68 percent, and the negative predictive value 67 percent. However, the difference in point estimates between the randomized trials and the meta-analyses was statistically significant for only 5 of the 40 comparisons (12 percent). Furthermore, in each case of disagreement a statistically significant effect of treatment was found by one method, whereas no statistically significant effect was found by the other. Conclusions The outcomes of the 12 large randomized, controlled trials that we studied were not predicted accurately 35 percent of the time by the meta-analyses published previously on the same topics. (C) 1997, Massachusetts Medical Society.
引用
收藏
页码:536 / 542
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Meta-analyses and large randomized, controlled trials
    Imperiale, TF
    NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1998, 338 (01): : 61 - 61
  • [2] Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses
    Kjaergard, LL
    Villumsen, J
    Gluud, C
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2001, 135 (11) : 982 - 989
  • [3] META-ANALYSES OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS
    SACKS, HS
    BERRIER, J
    REITMAN, D
    ANCONABERK, VA
    CHALMERS, TC
    NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1987, 316 (08): : 450 - 455
  • [4] Randomized controlled clinical trials and meta-analyses
    Pfeifer, Michael
    ARCHIVES OF OSTEOPOROSIS, 2015, 10 (01)
  • [5] Randomized controlled clinical trials and meta-analyses
    Michael Pfeifer
    Archives of Osteoporosis, 2015, 10
  • [6] Poor agreement in significant findings between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized trials in perioperative medicine
    Sivakumar, H.
    Peyton, P. J.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2016, 117 (04) : 431 - 441
  • [7] Poor agreement between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomised controlled trials in peri-operative medicine
    Peyton, P.
    Sivakumar, H.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2014, 31 : 3 - 3
  • [8] Conflict of Evidence: Resolving Discrepancies When Findings from Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-analyses Disagree
    Sylvester, Richard J.
    Canfield, Steven E.
    Lam, Thomas B. L.
    Marconi, Lorenzo
    MacLennan, Steven
    Yuan, Yuhong
    MacLennan, Graeme
    Norrie, John
    Omar, Muhammad Imran
    Bruins, Harman M.
    Hernandez, Virginia
    Plass, Karin
    Van Poppel, Hendrik
    N'Dow, James
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 71 (05) : 811 - 819
  • [9] Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-analyses (vol 149, pg 219, 2008)
    Gluud, Lise L.
    Thorlund, Kristian
    Gluud, Christian
    Woods, Lesley
    Harris, Ross
    Sterne, Jonathan A. C.
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2008, 149 (08) : 596 - 596
  • [10] Issues in comparisons between meta-analyses and large trials
    Ioannidis, JPA
    Cappelleri, JC
    Lau, J
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 279 (14): : 1089 - 1093