Education and debate

Systematic Reviews: Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta-analyses?

Clinical Trial Service Unit and ICRF Cancer Studies Unit, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE MRC Cancer Trials Office, Cambridge CB2 2BW Correspondence to: Dr Clarke.

Many randomised controlled trials compare treatments that will produce only moderate differences in outcome, but these differences can be clinically important. However, they are difficult to assess reliably and require a large amount of randomised evidence. This can be achieved through large prospective randomised trials which will accrue future patients, the meta-analysis of results from randomised trials involving patients from the past, or - ideally - both. The techniques require that all possible biases are minimised, and in meta-analyses this can best be achieved by ensuring that all of the randomised evidence - both trials and participants in those trials - is included. The meta-analysis of individual patient data has been described as the gold standard for this approach. It will remove many of the problems associated with relying solely on published data and some of the problems arising from a reliance on aggregate data, and will also . . . [Full text of this article]

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

Relevant Article

Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses

John P A Ioannidis, Nikolaos A Patsopoulos, and Evangelos Evangelou
BMJ 2007 335: 914-916. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Geddes, J. R., Calabrese, J. R., Goodwin, G. M. (2009). Lamotrigine for treatment of bipolar depression: independent meta-analysis and meta-regression of individual patient data from five randomised trials. Br. J. Psychiatry 194: 4-9 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Edwards, P., Cooper, R., Roberts, I., Frost, C. (2005). Meta-analysis of randomised trials of monetary incentives and response to mailed questionnaires. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 59: 987-999 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Braun, S., Vogl, F. D., Naume, B., Janni, W., Osborne, M. P., Coombes, R. C., Schlimok, G., Diel, I. J., Gerber, B., Gebauer, G., Pierga, J.-Y., Marth, C., Oruzio, D., Wiedswang, G., Solomayer, E.-F., Kundt, G., Strobl, B., Fehm, T., Wong, G. Y.C., Bliss, J., Vincent-Salomon, A., Pantel, K. (2005). A Pooled Analysis of Bone Marrow Micrometastasis in Breast Cancer. NEJM 353: 793-802 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Piedbois, P., Buyse, M. (2004). Meta-Analyses Based on Abstracted Data: A Step in the Right Direction, but Only a First Step. JCO 22: 3839-3841 [Full text]  
• Edwards, P., Roberts, I., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Wentz, R., Kwan, I. (2002). Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 324: 1183-1183 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Clarke, M. (2002). Commentary: Searching for trials for systematic reviews: what difference does it make?. Int J Epidemiol 31: 123-124 [Full text]  
• Sim, I., Owens, D. K., Lavori, P. W., Rennels, G. D. (2000). Electronic Trial Banks: A Complementary Method for Reporting Randomized Trials. Med Decis Making 20: 440-450 [Abstract]  
• Earle, C. C., Wells, G. A. (2000). An Assessment of Methods to Combine Published Survival Curves. Med Decis Making 20: 104-111 [Abstract]  
• Clarke, M., Stewart, L., Arida, A. U., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Jadad, A. R., Rennie, D. (1998). Time Lag Bias in Publishing Clinical Trials. JAMA 279: 1952-1953 [Full text]  
• Smith, G. D., Egger, M. (1998). Meta-analysis: Unresolved issues and future developments. BMJ 316: 221-225 [Full text]  
• Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group, (1995). Effects of Radiotherapy and Surgery in Early Breast Cancer -- An Overview of the Randomized Trials. NEJM 333: 1444-1456 [Abstract] [Full text]