The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Special Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 337:536-542 August 21, 1997 Number 8
NextNext

Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials
Jacques LeLorier, M.D., Ph.D., Geneviève Grégoire, M.D., Abdeltif Benhaddad, M.D., Julie Lapierre, M.D., and François Derderian, M.Sc.

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF

Commentary
-Letters
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background Meta-analyses are now widely used to provide evidence to support clinical strategies. However, large randomized, controlled trials are considered the gold standard in evaluating the efficacy of clinical interventions.

Methods We compared the results of large randomized, controlled trials (involving 1000 patients or more) that were published in four journals (the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association) with the results of meta-analyses published earlier on the same topics. Regarding the principal and secondary outcomes, we judged whether the findings of the randomized trials agreed with those of the corresponding meta-analyses, and we determined whether the study results were positive (indicating that treatment improved the outcome) or negative (indicating that the outcome with treatment was the same or worse than without it) at the conventional level of statistical significance (P<0.05).

Results We identified 12 large randomized, controlled trials and 19 meta-analyses addressing the same questions. For a total of 40 primary and secondary outcomes, agreement between the meta-analyses and the large clinical trials was only fair (kappa = 0.35; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.64). The positive predictive value of the meta-analyses was 68 percent, and the negative predictive value 67 percent. However, the difference in point estimates between the randomized trials and the meta-analyses was statistically significant for only 5 of the 40 comparisons (12 percent). Furthermore, in each case of disagreement a statistically significant effect of treatment was found by one method, whereas no statistically significant effect was found by the other.

Conclusions The outcomes of the 12 large randomized, controlled trials that we studied were not predicted accurately 35 percent of the time by the meta-analyses published previously on the same topics.


Source Information

From the Research Center, Hôtel-Dieu de Montréal Hospital, and the Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal — both in Montreal.

Address reprint requests to Dr. LeLorier at the Research Center, Hôtel-Dieu de Montréal, 3850 St. Urbain St., Pavilion Marie de la Ferre, 2nd Fl., Montreal, QC H2W 1T8, Canada.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Meta-Analyses and Large Randomized, Controlled Trials
Ioannidis J. P.A., Cappelleri J. C., Lau J., Bent S., Kerlikowske K., Grady D., Song F.-J., Sheldon T. A., Khan S., Williamson P., Sutton R., Stewart L. A., Parmar M. K.B., Tierney J. F., Sim I., Lavori P., Imperiale T. F., LeLorier J., Grégoire G., Bailar J. C.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 1998; 338:59-62, Jan 1, 1998. Correspondence

False False Positive Rates
Suojanen J. N.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 1999; 341:131, Jul 8, 1999. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.