The evidence provided by a single trial is less reliable than its statistical analysis suggests

被引:42
作者
Borm, George F. [1 ,2 ]
Lemmers, Oscar [1 ,2 ]
Fransen, Jaap [3 ]
Donders, Rogier [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Dept Epidemiol, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Biostat & HTA, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Dept Rheumatol, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
关键词
Clinical trial; Confidence interval; Type I error; Heterogeneity; Meta-analysis; P-value; RANDOMIZED-TRIALS; CLINICAL-TRIALS; METAANALYSIS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.013
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To investigate whether a single trial can provide sufficiently robust evidence to warrant clinical implementation of its results. Trial-specific factors, such as Subject selection, study design, and execution strategy, have an impact on the outcome of trials. In multiple trials, they may lead to heterogeneity that can be taken into account in the (random effects) meta-analysis. Single trials lack this method of estimating the impact Of Such factors, and this affects the credibility of the results. Study Design and Setting: To indicate how much the precision of the results of a single trial might be overestimated, we calculated the ratio of the widths of the confidence intervals when heterogeneity was taken into account and when it was not. Results: The ratios of the widths of the confidence intervals with and without between-study variability were 1.15, 1.41, and 2.00, when the heterogeneity l(2) Values were 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75, respectively. Conclusion: The results of a single trial should be interpreted with caution. When it is difficult to predict or determine how trial-specific factors influence the results, the best way to evaluate the performance of a treatment is to use multiple, possibly smaller, trials. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:711 / 715
页数:5
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]   Publication bias was not a good reason to discourage trials with low power [J].
Borm, George F. ;
den Heijer, Martin ;
Zielhuis, Gerhard A. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2009, 62 (01) :47-53
[2]   METAANALYSIS OF CLINICAL-TRIALS AS A SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE .2. REPLICATE VARIABILITY AND COMPARISON OF STUDIES THAT AGREE AND DISAGREE [J].
CHALMERS, TC ;
BERRIER, J ;
SACKS, HS ;
LEVIN, H ;
REITMAN, D ;
NAGALINGAM, R .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1987, 6 (07) :733-744
[3]   A meta-analysis of the efficacy and toxicity of combining disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis based on patient withdrawal [J].
Choy, EHS ;
Smith, C ;
Doré, CJ ;
Scott, DL .
RHEUMATOLOGY, 2005, 44 (11) :1414-1421
[4]  
EDWARDS SJL, 1998, NEW ENGL J MED, V338, P59
[5]   Where now for meta-analysis? [J].
Egger, M ;
Ebrahim, S ;
Smith, GD .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2002, 31 (01) :1-5
[6]  
Egger M., 2001, Systematic reviews in health care
[7]  
*EMEA, 2001, POINTS CONS APPL MET
[8]  
FDA Department of Health and Human Services, 1998, GUID IND PROV EV EFF
[9]   Generalizing results of randomized trials to clinical practice: reliability and cautions [J].
Flather, Marcus ;
Delahunty, Nicola ;
Collinson, Julian .
CLINICAL TRIALS, 2006, 3 (06) :508-512
[10]   What is heterogeneity and is it important? [J].
Fletcher, John .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2007, 334 (7584) :94-96