Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? | Zendy

Kristian Thorlund | Zendy; P.J. Devereaux | Zendy; Jørn Wetterslev | Zendy; Gordon Guyatt | Zendy; John P. A. Ioannidis | Zendy; Lehana Thabane | Zendy; Lise Lotte Gluud | Zendy; Bodil AlsNielsen | Zendy; Christian Gluud | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses?

Author(s) -

Kristian Thorlund,

P.J. Devereaux,

Jørn Wetterslev,

Gordon Guyatt,

John P. A. Ioannidis,

Lehana Thabane,

Lise Lotte Gluud,

Bodil AlsNielsen,

Christian Gluud

Publication year - 2008

Publication title -

international journal of epidemiology

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 3.406

H-Index - 208

eISSN - 1464-3685

pISSN - 0300-5771

DOI - 10.1093/ije/dyn179

Subject(s) - spurious relationship , meta analysis , medicine , inference , medline , econometrics , statistics , computer science , mathematics , artificial intelligence , biology , biochemistry

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).

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research