Premium
Meta‐analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. II: Replicate variability and comparison of studies that agree and disagree
Author(s) -
Chalmers Thomas C.,
Berrier Jayne,
Sacks Henry S.,
Levin Howard,
Reitman Dinah,
Nagalingam Raguraman
Publication year - 1987
Publication title -
statistics in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.996
H-Index - 183
eISSN - 1097-0258
pISSN - 0277-6715
DOI - 10.1002/sim.4780060704
Subject(s) - replicate , meta analysis , clinical trial , multivariate statistics , multivariate analysis , psychology , statistics , medicine , mathematics
The replicate variability of meta‐analyses of controlled clinical trials has been assessed as a measure of scientific precision. 46 of 91 known meta‐analysis papers were divided into 20 cohorts of studies of the same therapies. Ten cohorts contained meta‐analyses with different statistical conclusions; 14 contained differing clinical conclusions with a wider spread than the statistically differing studies. Possible causes of variability, such as different trials included, different policies regarding the inclusion of non‐randomized and unpublished trials, and different statistical methodologies, were not obvious causes of differing conclusions. Further work in this area should include multivariate analyses in order to explore possible interactions in the factors accounting for the variability found in replicate meta‐analyses.