Open AccessConclusive meta‐analyses on antenatal magnesium may be inconclusive! Are we underestimating the risk of random error?
Author(s) -
BROK JESPER,
HUUSOM LENE D.,
THORLUND KRISTIAN
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
acta obstetricia et gynecologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.401
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1600-0412
pISSN - 0001-6349
DOI - 10.1111/aogs.12021
Subject(s) - meta analysis , medicine , spurious relationship , random effects model , randomized controlled trial , random error , systematic error , statistics , mathematics
Results from meta‐analyses significantly influence clinical practice. Both simulation and empirical studies have demonstrated that the risk of random error (i.e. spurious chance findings) in meta‐analyses is much higher than previously anticipated. Hence, authors and users of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses have a responsibility to carefully consider the risk of random errors to avoid misleading conclusions. Trial sequential analysis is a useful meta‐analytic method for gauging the risk of random error in meta‐analysis and the amount of additional evidence required to reach firm conclusions about the investigated intervention effect(s). We outline the rationale for conducting trial sequential analysis including some examples of the meta‐analysis on antenatal magnesium for women at risk of preterm birth.