 |
 |

Comparing Results From Meta-analyses vs Large Trials
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
To the Editor.In their review and discussion of relevant issues in comparisons between meta-analyses and large randomized controlled trials,1 Ioannidis and colleagues propose to explain why our external comparisons2 (comparing large randomized controlled trials with previous meta-analyses) might produce larger differences than the internal comparisons used by Villar et al3 and Capelleri et al4 (they recalculated the results of each meta-analysis after removing the largest trial and then compared these results with those of the large trial that had been removed). However, we do not think the Villar-Capelleri protocol is a valid method of testing the extent of concordance between meta-analyses and large randomized controlled trials because it has an important flaw. It does not test the meta-analysis as it was published (the issue of interest) but a new version, with a different result, which excluded the large trial and only included small trials in the analysis. The meaning . . . [Full Text of this Article]
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Issues in Comparisons Between Meta-analyses and Large Trials
John P. A. Ioannidis, Joseph C. Cappelleri, and Joseph Lau
JAMA. 1998;279(14):1089-1093.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
 |
Assessment of Adverse Reaction Rates to a Newly Approved MRI Contrast Agent: Review of 23,553 Administrations of Gadobenate Dimeglumine
Bleicher and Kanal
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008;191:W307-W311.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Risk Stratification and Comorbidity
Ferraris et al.
Card Surg Adult 2008;3:199-246.
FULL TEXT
Risk Stratification and Comorbidity
Ferraris and Ferraris
Card Surg Adult 2003;2:187-224.
FULL TEXT
Has the Use of Meta-Analysis Enhanced Our Understanding of Therapies for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting?
White and Watcha
Anesth. Analg. 1999;88:1200-1200.
FULL TEXT
|