Single-center trials tend to provide larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: A systematic review

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 66, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 1271-1280

  Unverzagt, Susanne ^a   Prondzinsky, Roland ^a   Peinemann, Frank ^b  

^a MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Confounding factors; Critical care medicine; Randomized controlled trials; Research design; Risk of bias

Indexed keywords

CARDIOGENIC SHOCK; HUMAN; INTENSIVE CARE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MORTALITY; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SEPSIS; SEPTIC SHOCK; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

CONFOUNDING FACTORS; CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK OF BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CRITICAL CARE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; RISK; SEPSIS; SHOCK, CARDIOGENIC; SHOCK, SEPTIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84885018897     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.016     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. I. Chalmers Comparing like with like: some historical milestones in the evolution of methods to create unbiased comparison groups in therapeutic experiments Int J Epidemiol 30 2001 1156 1164
2. K.F. Schulz, D.G. Altman, D. Moher, and C. Group CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials BMJ 340 2010 c332
3. S. West, V. King, T.S. Carey, K.N. Lohr, N. McKoy, and S.F. Sutton Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence reports/technology assessments, no. 47. (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011) April 2002 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Rockville, MD Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK33881/
4. L.L. Gluud Bias in clinical intervention research Am J Epidemiol 163 2006 493 501
5. A.P. Verhagen, H.C. de Vet, R.A. de Bie, M. Boers, and P.A. van den Brandt The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews J Clin Epidemiol 54 2001 651 654
6. A.D. Oxman, and G.H. Guyatt Guidelines for reading literature reviews CMAJ 138 8 1988 697 703
7. L. Wood, M. Egger, L.L. Gluud, K.F. Schulz, P. Juni, and D.G. Altman Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study BMJ 336 2008 601 605
8. R. Bellomo, S.J. Warrillow, and M.C. Reade Why we should be wary of single-center trials Crit Care Med 37 12 2009 3114 3119
9. D. Annane, E. Bellissant, and J.M. Cavaillon Septic shock Lancet 365 2005 63 78
10. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Chichester, UK
11. E.M. Balk, P.A. Bonis, H. Moskowitz, C.H. Schmid, J.P. Ioannidis, and C. Wang Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials JAMA 287 2002 2973 2982
12. N. Latronico, M. Botteri, C. Minelli, C. Zanotti, G. Bertolini, and A. Candiani Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in the intensive care literature. A systematic analysis of papers published in Intensive Care Medicine over 26 years Intensive Care Med 28 9 2002 1316 1323
13. C.A. van Nieuwenhoven, E. Buskens, F.H. van Tiel, and M.J. Bonten Relationship between methodological trial quality and the effects of selective digestive decontamination on pneumonia and mortality in critically ill patients JAMA 286 2001 335 340
14. J.P.T. Higgins, and S. Green Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration Oxford, UK Available at http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/
15. B. Als-Nielsen, L.L. Gluud, and C. Gluud [O72] Methodological quality and treatment effects in randomised trials: a review of six empirical studies Cochrane Colloquium Abstracts Journal 2004 2004 12th Cochrane Colloquium Ottawa, Canada
16. J.E. Bekelman, Y. Li, and C.P. Gross Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review JAMA 289 2003 454 465
17. A.W. Chan, A. Hrobjartsson, M.T. Haahr, P.C. Gotzsche, and D.G. Altman Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles JAMA 291 2004 2457 2465
18. A. Dechartres, I. Boutron, L. Trinquart, P. Charles, and P. Ravaud Single-center trials show larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: evidence from a meta-epidemiologic study Ann Intern Med 155 2011 39 51
19. M. Egger, P. Juni, C. Bartlett, F. Holenstein, and J. Sterne How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study Health Technol Assess 7 2003 1 76
20. P. Juni, A. Witschi, R. Bloch, and M. Egger The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis JAMA 282 1999 1054 1060
21. L.L. Kjaergard, J. Villumsen, and C. Gluud Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses Ann Intern Med 135 2001 982 989
22. J. Lexchin, L.A. Bero, B. Djulbegovic, and O. Clark Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review BMJ 326 2003 1167 1170
23. D. Moher, B. Pham, A. Jones, D.J. Cook, A.R. Jadad, and M. Moher Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352 1998 609 613
24. V.M. Montori, P.J. Devereaux, N.K. Adhikari, K.E. Burns, C.H. Eggert, and M. Briel Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review JAMA 294 2005 2203 2209
25. K.F. Schulz, I. Chalmers, R.J. Hayes, and D.G. Altman Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials JAMA 273 1995 408 412
26. J.F. Tierney, and L.A. Stewart Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis Int J Epidemiol 34 2005 79 87
27. L. Hartling, M. Ospina, Y. Liang, D.M. Dryden, N. Hooton, and J. Krebs Seida Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study BMJ 339 2009 b4012
28. D. Fergusson, S.D. Aaron, G. Guyatt, and P. Hebert Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis BMJ 325 2002 652 654
29. M. Rosen The aprotinin saga and the risks of conducting meta-analyses on small randomised controlled trials - a critique of a Cochrane review BMC Health Serv Res 9 2009 34
30. J.A. Sterne, D. Gavaghan, and M. Egger Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature J Clin Epidemiol 53 2000 1119 1129
31. V. Siersma, B. Als-Nielsen, W. Chen, J. Hilden, L.L. Gluud, and C. Gluud Multivariable modelling for meta-epidemiological assessment of the association between trial quality and treatment effects estimated in randomized clinical trials Stat Med 26 2007 2745 2758
32. Kuss O. How to use SAS for logistic regression with correlated data. Proc 27th Annu SAS Users Group Int Conf (SUGI 27) 2002: 261-327.
33. The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.1 2012 The Nordic Cochrane Centre Copenhagen, Denmark Available at http://ims.cochrane.org/revman
34. IBM SPSS Statistics. Ehningen: IBM Deutschland GmbH 2011. Available at http://www-01.ibm.com/software/de/analytics/spss/products/statistics/.
35. SAS version 9.2 2011 SAS Institute Cary, NC Available at http://www.sas.com/
36. J.P. Higgins, S.G. Thompson, J.J. Deeks, and D.G. Altman Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses BMJ 327 2003 557 560
37. M.M. Alejandria, M.A. Lansang, L.F. Dans, and J.B. Mantaring Intravenous immunoglobulin for treating sepsis and septic shock Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1 2002 CD001090
38. D. Annane, E. Bellissant, P.E. Bollaert, J. Briegel, D. Keh, and Y. Kupfer Corticosteroids for treating severe sepsis and septic shock Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1 2004 CD002243
39. B. Boeuf, V. Poirier, F. Gauvin, A.M. Guerguerian, C. Roy, and C.A. Farrell Naloxone for shock Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4 2003 CD004443
40. C. Havel, J. Arrich, H. Losert, G. Gamper, M. Mullner, and H. Herkner Vasopressors for hypotensive shock Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5 2011 CD003709
41. A. Marti-Carvajal, G. Salanti, and A.F. Cardona Human recombinant activated protein C for severe sepsis Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1 2008 CD004388
42. S. Unverzagt, M.T. Machemer, A. Solms, H. Thiele, D. Burkhoff, and M. Seyfarth Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7 2011 CD007398
43. J.P.T. Higgins, D.G. Altman, and J.A.C. Sterne Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies J.P.T. Higgins, S. Green, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration Oxford, UK Available at http://handbook.cochrane.org/ chapter-8/8-assessing-risk-of-bias-in-included-studies.htm
44. E. von Elm, A. Rollin, A. Blumle, K. Huwiler, M. Witschi, and M. Egger Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee Swiss Med Wkly 138 13-14 2008 197 203
45. S.G. Thompson, and J.P. Higgins How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21 2002 1559 1573
46. J. Savovic, H.E. Jones, D.G. Altman, R.J. Harris, P. Juni, and J. Pildal Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials Ann Intern Med 157 2012 429 438
47. K.F. Schulz, D.A. Grimes, D.G. Altman, and R.J. Hayes Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology BMJ 312 1996 742 744
48. H.P. Soares, S. Daniels, A. Kumar, M. Clarke, C. Scott, and S. Swann Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group BMJ 328 2004 22 24
49. N.J. Welton, A.E. Ades, J.B. Carlin, D.G. Altman, and J.A.C. Sterne Models for potentially biased evidence in meta-analysis using empirically based priors J R Stat Soc Ser A 172 1 2009 119 136
50. R. Prondzinsky, H. Lemm, M. Swyter, N. Wegener, S. Unverzagt, and J.M. Carter Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomized IABP SHOCK Trial for attenuation of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome Crit Care Med 38 1 2010 152 160
51. H. Thiele, U. Zeymer, F.J. Neumann, M. Ferenc, H.G. Olbrich, and J. Hausleiter Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock N Engl J Med 367 2012 1287 1296