Factors affecting the comparability of meta-analyses and largest trials results in perinatology

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 50, Issue 9, 1997, Pages 997-1002

  Villar, J ^a   Piaggio, G ^a   Carroli, G ^b   Donner, A ^c  

^a WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

^b Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales   (Argentina)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Comparability; Funnel plots; Largest trial; Meta analysis; Perinatology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PERINATAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CLINICAL TRIALS; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS; PERINATOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK;

EID: 0030754789     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00148-0     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Dickersin K, Berlin J. Meta-analysis: State-of-the-science. Epidemiol Rev 1992; 14: 154-176.
2. Carroli G, Duley L, Belizán JM, Villar J. Calcium supplementation during pregnancy: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; 101: 753-58.
3. Villar J, Carroli G, Belizán JM. Predictive ability of meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 1995; 345: 772-776.
4. Petitti D. Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994: 214-216.
5. Schulz K. Meta-analyses of interventional trials done in populations with different risks. Lancet 1995; 345: 1304-1305.
6. Anonymous. The unending need for scepticism. Br Med J 1995; 310: 750.
7. Egger M, Davey Smith G. Misleading meta-analysis. Br Med J 1995; 310: 752-754.
8. Fluornoy N, Olkin I. Do small trials square with large ones? Lancet 1995; 345: 741-742.
9. Enkin MW, Keirse MJNC, Renfrew MJ, Neilson JP, Eds. Pregnancy and Childbirth Module: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane update on disk). Oxford: Update Software; 1993, disk issue 2.
10. Greenland S, Robins JM. Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. Biometrics 1985; 41: 55-68.
11. Simon, R. Statistical tools for subset analysis in clinical trials. In: Baum M, Kay R, Scheurlein H, Eds. Recent Results in Cancer Research. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1988: 55-66.
12. Schlesselman, J. Case-control Studies: Design, Conduct and Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 1982: 195.
13. Rosenthal R. The "File Drawer Problem" and tolerance for null results. Psych Bull 1979; 86: 638-641.
14. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50: 1088-1101.
15. Rothman KJ. Significance questing (editorial). Ann Intern Med 1986; 105: 445-447.
16. CLASP Collaborative Group. CLASP: A randomized trial of low-dose aspirin for the prevention and treatment of preeclampsia among 9364 pregnant women. Lancet 1994; 343: 619-629.
17. Carroli G. Management of retained placenta by umbilical vein injection. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 348-349.
18. Bucher H, Guyatt G, Cook R, Hatala R, Cook D, Long J, Hunt D. Effect of calcium supplementation on pregnancy-induced hypertension and preclampsia. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Assoc 1996; 275: 1113-1117.
19. ISIS-4 Collaborative group. ISIS4: A randomized factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral nononitrate and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1995; 345: 669-685.
20. Borzak S, Ridker P. Discordance between meta-analyses and large-scale randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 873-877.
21. Greenland S. Invited Commentary: A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 140: 290-296.
22. Silverman W, Altman D. Patients' preferences and randomized trials. Lancet 1996; 347: 171-174.
23. Iyengar S, Greenhouse JB. Selection models and the file drawer problem. Stat Sci 1988; 3: 109-135.