Sensitivity subgroup analysis based on single-center vs. multi-center trial status when interpreting meta-analyses pooled estimates: the logical way forward.

Clicks: 259
ID: 99304
2016
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.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #35 of 75 articles by views in journal of clinical epidemiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create 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
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Prior studies regarding whether single-center trial estimates are larger than multi-center are equivocal. We examined the extent to which single-center trials yield systematically larger effects than multi-center trials.We searched the 119 core clinical journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published during 2012. In this meta-epidemiologic study, for binary variables, we computed the pooled ratio of ORs (RORs), and for continuous outcomes mean difference in standardized mean differences (SMDs), we conducted weighted random-effects meta-regression and random-effects MA modeling. Our primary analyses were restricted to MAs that included at least five RCTs and in which at least 25% of the studies used each of single trial center (SC) and more trial center (MC) designs.We identified 81 MAs for the odds ratio (OR) and 43 for the SMD outcome measures. Based on our analytic plan, our primary analysis (core) is based on 25 MAs/241 RCTs (binary outcome) and 18 MAs/173 RCTs (continuous outcome). Based on the core analysis, we found no difference in magnitude of effect between SC and MC for binary outcomes [RORs: 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83, 1.24; I(2) 20.2%]. Effect sizes were systematically larger for SC than MC for the continuous outcome measure (mean difference in SMDs: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.21, -0.05; I(2) 0%).Our results do not support prior findings of larger effects in SC than MC trials addressing binary outcomes but show a very similar small increase in effect in SC than MC trials addressing continuous outcomes. Authors of systematic reviews would be wise to include all trials irrespective of SC vs. MC design and address SC vs. MC status as a possible explanation of heterogeneity (and consider sensitivity analyses).
Reference Key
alexander2016sensitivityjournal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Alexander, Paul E;Bonner, Ashley J;Agarwal, Arnav;Li, Shelly-Anne;Hariharan, Abishek;Izhar, Zain;Bhatnagar, Neera;Alba, Carolina;Akl, Elie A;Fei, Yutong;Guyatt, Gordon H;Beyene, Joseph;
Journal journal of clinical epidemiology
Year 2016
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.027
URL
Keywords
heterogeneity meta-analyses mean difference in smd metabias multi-center ratio of odds ratio single center

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.