Random error in cardiovascular meta-analyses: How common are false positive and false negative results?

International Journal of Cardiology

Volumn 168, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 1102-1107

  Al Balawi, Zaina ^a   McAlister, Finlay A ^a   Thorlund, Kristian ^b   Wong, Michelle ^a   Wetterslev, Jørn ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular; Cochrane; Meta analyses

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARDIOLOGY; EFFECT SIZE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RANDOM ERROR; RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION; RISK REDUCTION; SAMPLE SIZE; SEQUENTIAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TRIAL SEQUENTIAL ANALYSIS;

CARDIOVASCULAR; COCHRANE; META-ANALYSES;

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 84885290015     PISSN: 01675273     EISSN: 18741754     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.11.048     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. McAlister FA, Mohamed R. The evolution of evidence: cautionary notes for the clinician, and the meta-analyst. Am Heart J 2007;153(2):156-8.
2. Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive -trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol 2009;38(1):287-98.
3. Pogue JM, Yusuf S. Cumulating evidence fromrandomized trials: utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulativemeta-analysis. Control Clin Trials 1997;18(6): 580-93.
4. Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C,Wetterslev J. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:763-9.
5. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effectsmodelmeta-analyses. BMCMed ResMethodol 2009;9:86.
6. Yusuf S. Two decades of progress in preventing vascular disease. Lancet 2002;360(9326):2-3.
7. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44(11):1271-8.
8. Thorlund K, Devereaux PJ, Wetterslev J, et al. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? Int J Epidemiol 2009;38:276-86.
9. Pereira TV, Ioannidis JPA. Statistically significant meta-analyses of clinical trials have modest credibility and inflated effects. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(10):1060-9.
10. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence -imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(12):1283-93.
11. Ioannidis JPA, Lau J. Evolution of treatment effects over time: empirical insight from recursive cumulative metaanalyses. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2001;98(3):831-6.
12. Ioannidis JPA. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005;294(2):218-28.
13. Toma M, McAlister FA, Bialy L, Adams D, Vandermeer B, Armstrong PW. Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2006;295(11):1281-7.
14. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007;4(3):e78.
15. Joørgensen AW, Hilden J, Goøtzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 2006;333:782.
16. McAlister FA, van Diepen S, Padwal R, Johnson JA, Majumdar SR. How evidencebased are the recommendations in evidence-based guidelines? PLoS Med 2007;4(8): e250-8.
17. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA 2005;293(19):2362-6.