Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study

被引:354
作者
Dechartres, Agnes [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Trinquart, Ludovic [1 ,4 ]
Boutron, Isabelle [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Ravaud, Philippe [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] INSERM, U738, Paris, France
[2] Hop Hotel Dieu, AP HP, Ctr Epidemiol Clin, F-75004 Paris, France
[3] Univ Paris 05, Fac Med, Sorbonne Paris Cite, Paris, France
[4] French Cochrane Ctr, Paris, France
[5] Columbia Univ, Mailman Sch Publ Hlth, New York, NY USA
来源
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL | 2013年 / 346卷
关键词
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; EMPIRICAL-EVIDENCE; QUALITY; METAANALYSES; BIAS; OUTCOMES; IMPACT; DISCREPANCIES; PUBLICATION;
D O I
10.1136/bmj.f2304
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective To assess the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates within meta-analyses. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 93 meta-analyses (735 randomised controlled trials) assessing therapeutic interventions with binary outcomes, published in the 10 leading journals of each medical subject category of the Journal Citation Reports or in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Data extraction Sample size, outcome data, and risk of bias extracted from each trial. Data synthesis Trials within each meta-analysis were sorted by their sample size: using quarters within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 with 25% of the smallest trials, to quarter 4 with 25% of the largest trials), and using size groups across meta-analyses (ranging from <50 to >= 1000 patients). Treatment effects were compared within each meta-analysis between quarters or between size groups by average ratios of odds ratios (where a ratio of odds ratios less than 1 indicates larger effects in smaller trials). Results Treatment effect estimates were significantly larger in smaller trials, regardless of sample size. Compared with quarter 4 (which included the largest trials), treatment effects were, on average, 32% larger in trials in quarter 1 (which included the smallest trials; ratio of odds ratios 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.82), 17% larger in trials in quarter 2 (0.83, 0.75 to 0.91), and 12% larger in trials in quarter 3 (0.88, 0.82 to 0.95). Similar results were obtained when comparing treatment effect estimates between different size groups. Compared with trials of 1000 patients or more, treatment effects were, on average, 48% larger in trials with fewer than 50 patients (0.52, 0.41 to 0.66) and 10% larger in trials with 500-999 patients (0.90, 0.82 to 1.00). Conclusions Treatment effect estimates differed within meta-analyses solely based on trial sample size, with stronger effect estimates seen in small to moderately sized trials than in the largest trials.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study
    Bafeta, Aida
    Dechartres, Agnes
    Trinquart, Ludovic
    Yavchitz, Amelie
    Boutron, Isabelle
    Ravaud, Philippe
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 344
  • [2] Introduction: Special Content Focus on Emergency Ultrasonography
    Brandler, Ethan
    Paladino, Lorenzo
    Sinert, Richard
    [J]. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2010, 17 (01) : 1 - 10
  • [3] Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials -: Comparison of Protocols to published articles
    Chan, AW
    Hróbjartsson, A
    Haahr, MT
    Gotzsche, PC
    Altman, DG
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 291 (20): : 2457 - 2465
  • [4] Single-Center Trials Show Larger Treatment Effects Than Multicenter Trials: Evidence From a Meta-epidemiologic Study
    Dechartres, Agnes
    Boutron, Isabelle
    Trinquart, Ludovic
    Charles, Pierre
    Ravaud, Philippe
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2011, 155 (01) : 39 - +
  • [5] Meta-analysis - Bias in location and selection of studies
    Egger, M
    Smith, GD
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1998, 316 (7124): : 61 - 66
  • [6] Strengths and limitations of meta-analysis: Larger studies may be more reliable
    Flather, MD
    Farkouh, ME
    Pogue, JM
    Yusuf, S
    [J]. CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1997, 18 (06): : 568 - 579
  • [7] Can we rely on the best trial? A comparison of individual trials and systematic reviews
    Glasziou, Paul P.
    Shepperd, Sasha
    Brassey, Jon
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2010, 10
  • [8] Metabias: A Challenge for Comparative Effectiveness Research
    Goodman, Steven
    Dickersin, Kay
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2011, 155 (01) : 61 - +
  • [9] Higgins J., 2008, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, DOI [10.1002/9780470712184, DOI 10.1002/9780470712184]
  • [10] Higgins JP., 2011, BMJ, V343, pd5928, DOI [10.1136/bmj.d5928, DOI 10.1136/BMJ.D5928]