Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses?
Clicks: 3
ID: 305128
2008
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.6
/100
3 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #127 of 133 articles by views in International Journal of Epidemiology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 133 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Results from apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be false. A limited number of events from a few small trials and the associated random error may be under-recognized sources of spurious findings. The information size (IS, i.e. number of participants) required for a reliable and conclusive meta-analysis should be no less rigorous than the sample size of a single, optimally powered randomized clinical trial. If a meta-analysis is conducted before a sufficient IS is reached, it should be evaluated in a manner that accounts for the increased risk that the result might represent a chance finding (i.e. applying trial sequential monitoring boundaries).We analysed 33 meta-analyses with a sufficient IS to detect a treatment effect of 15% relative risk reduction (RRR). We successively monitored the results of the meta-analyses by generating interim cumulative meta-analyses after each included trial and evaluated their results using a conventional statistical criterion (alpha = 0.05) and two-sided Lan-DeMets monitoring boundaries. We examined the proportion of false positive results and important inaccuracies in estimates of treatment effects that resulted from the two approaches.Using the random-effects model and final data, 12 of the meta-analyses yielded P > alpha = 0.05, and 21 yielded P alpha = 0.05. The monitoring boundaries eliminated all false positives. Important inaccuracies in estimates were observed in 6 out of 21 meta-analyses using the conventional P
| Reference Key |
openalex_W2110970000
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Kristian Thorlund, P.J. Devereaux, Jørn Wetterslev, Gordon Guyatt, John P. A. Ioannidis, Lehana Thabane, Lise Lotte Gluud, Bodil Als‐Nielsen, Christian Gluud |
| Journal | International Journal of Epidemiology |
| Year | 2008 |
| DOI |
10.1093/ije/dyn179
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.