This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Harvard, T. C. Articles by Lau, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Harvard, T. C. Articles by Lau, J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Meta-analytic stimulus for changes in clinical trials

School of Public Health, Boston

J. Lau

Center for Cardiovascular Health Services Research and Study Design, New England Medical Center, Boston

The advent of meta-analysis, especially when performed cumulatively, raises many questions about how best to approach the conduct of clinical trials in the evaluation of new treatments. We need to be assured that bias is minimized by proper experimental procedures and that clinical data, on the whole and in subgroups, are presented so that they can be effectively combined in meta-analysis. We need to re-examine the idea that we should not start a randomized control trial unless sufficient patients are available to avoid reasonable type I and II errors. Meta-analyses will come to the rescue, provided trials continue to be published at the present rate. We need to perform meta-analyses before undertaking each additional trial, and we need to base estimates of trial size on past data as well as the expected control rates and the differences we do not want to miss. In clinical trials of new interventions attempting to disprove the null hypothesis may be inappropriate because past data so often suggest or even establish that it is not true. Furthermore we need to recognize that trends (p > 0.05) can be both clinically and statistically important, and we must abandon the notion that if p is not < 0.05, the treatment is ineffective.

In performing meta-analyses we need to worry about minimizing bias and error and consider the differences between the random and fixed effects models and between reporting results as an odds ratio versus difference in risk, with the control rates given.

Experiences with cumulative meta-analysis have required that we think about all of these problems.

Statistical Methods in Medical Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, 161-172 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/096228029300200204


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Calkins, M. R. Reynolds, P. Spector, M. Sondhi, Y. Xu, A. Martin, C. J. Williams, and I. Sledge Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation With Antiarrhythmic Drugs or Radiofrequency Ablation: Two Systematic Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, August 1, 2009; 2(4): 349 - 361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Geddes, J. R. Calabrese, and G. M. Goodwin Lamotrigine for treatment of bipolar depression: independent meta-analysis and meta-regression of individual patient data from five randomised trials The British Journal of Psychiatry, January 1, 2009; 194(1): 4 - 9. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. K. Hanson and I. Broom The Utility of Cumulative Meta-Analysis: Application to Programs for Reducing Sexual Violence Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, October 1, 2005; 17(4): 357 - 373. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J.W. Stamm The Classic Caries Clinical Trial: Constraints and Opportunities Journal of Dental Research, July 1, 2004; 83(suppl_1): C6 - C14. [Full Text] [PDF]