BMJ  2008;336:601-605 (15 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD (published 3 March 2008)

Research

Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

¹ Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR, ² Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Switzerland, ³ Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark, ⁴ Family Health International and Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA, ⁵ Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford, UK

Objective To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome.

Design Combined analysis of data from three meta-epidemiological studies based on collections of meta-analyses.

Data sources 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes.

Main outcome measures Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or non-blinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates.

Results In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and non-drug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses.

Conclusions The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Monami, M., Marchionni, N., Mannucci, E. (2009). Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Eur J Endocrinol 160: 909-917 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Jespersen, C. M., Kolmos, H. J., Frydendall, N., Hilden, J., Gluud, C., Fischer Hansen, J., on behalf of the CLARICOR Trial Group, (2009). Compliance with and short-term adverse events from clarithromycin versus placebo in patients with stable coronary heart disease: the CLARICOR trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 0: dkp190v1-dkp190 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Howick, J., Glasziou, P., Aronson, J. K (2009). The evolution of evidence hierarchies: what can Bradford Hill's 'guidelines for causation' contribute?. JRSM 102: 186-194 [Full text]  
• Assiri, A. M., Alasmari, F. A., Zimmerman, V. A., Baddour, L. M., Erwin, P. J., Tleyjeh, I. M. (2009). Corticosteroid Administration and Outcome of Adolescents and Adults With Acute Bacterial Meningitis: A Meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc. 84: 403-409 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Machado, L. A. C., Kamper, S. J., Herbert, R. D., Maher, C. G., McAuley, J. H. (2009). Analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials. Rheumatology (Oxford) 48: 520-527 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Leff, H. S., Chow, C. M., Pepin, R., Conley, J., Allen, I. E., Seaman, C. A. (2009). Does One Size Fit All? What We Can and Can't Learn From a Meta-analysis of Housing Models for Persons With Mental Illness. Psychiatr. Serv. 60: 473-482 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Diaz-Insua, M. (2009). Review: Methodological quality in medical evidence, quo vadis?. Therapeutic Advances in Urology 1: 51-59 [Abstract]  
• Brok, J., Thorlund, K., Wetterslev, J., Gluud, C. (2009). 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 38: 287-298 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Nuesch, E., Juni, P. (2009). Commentary: Which meta-analyses are conclusive?. Int J Epidemiol 38: 298-303 [Full text]  
• Chartapisak, W, Opastiraku, S L, Willis, N S, Craig, J C, Hodson, E M (2009). Prevention and treatment of renal disease in Henoch-Schonlein purpura: a systematic review. Arch. Dis. Child. 94: 132-137 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Huss, A. PhD, Scott, P. MSc, Stuck, A. E. MD, Trotter, C. PhD, Egger, M. MD MSc (2009). Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis. CMAJ 180: 48-58 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Needleman, I., Moher, D., Altman, D.G., Schulz, K.F., Moles, D.R., Worthington, H. (2008). Improving the Clarity and Transparency of Reporting Health Research: a Shared Obligation and Responsibility. JDR 87: 894-895 [Full text]  
• Speedie, S. M., Taweel, A., Sim, I., Arvanitis, T. N., Delaney, B., Peterson, K. A. (2008). The Primary Care Research Object Model (PCROM): A Computable Information Model for Practice-based Primary Care Research. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 15: 661-670 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Gluud, L. L., Thorlund, K., Gluud, C., Woods, L., Harris, R., Sterne, J. A.C. (2008). Correction: Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses. ANN INTERN MED 149: 219-219 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Better evidence is needed for the validity and the reliability of tools assessing the risk of bias of individual trials

Jose M Valderas, et al.
bmj.com, 21 Mar 2008 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>