You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 280 No. 6, August 12, 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (4)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

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]



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter 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  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1998 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.