IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0113994.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Often Does an Individual Trial Agree with Its Corresponding Meta-Analysis? A Meta-Epidemiologic Study

Author

Listed:
  • Wilson W S Tam
  • Jin-Ling Tang
  • Meng-yang Di
  • Kelvin K F Tsoi

Abstract

Objective: A meta-analysis may provide more conclusive results than a single trial. The major cost of meta-analysis is the time of waiting before the meta-analysis becomes available and resources spent on consequent trials that may not be necessary. The objective of this study is to address how often the result of a single trial, in particular the first trial, differs from that of its corresponding meta-analysis so as to reduce unnecessary waiting time and subsequent trials. Study Design and Settings: A meta-epidemiologic study was conducted by collecting meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and five major medical journals. Effect size of a single trial was compared with that of its corresponding meta-analysis. The single trial includes the first trial, last trial and any trial randomly selected from the meta-analysis. Results: 647 meta-analyses are included and the median number of trials in a meta-analysis is 5. 233 (36.0%) meta-analyses have the first trial with a statistically significant result. When the first trial is statistically significant, 84.1% (95% CI: 79.4%, 88.8%) of the corresponding meta-analyses is both in the same direction and statistically significant. When the first trial is statistically insignificant, 57.9% (95% CI: 53.2%, 62.8%) of the meta-analysis is also statistically insignificant regardless of direction. The median number of years is 6.5 years from the first to the 5th trial. Conclusion: The conclusion of the first trial that the treatment is effective or harmful is mostly likely correct. A statistically significant trial agrees more often with its corresponding meta-analysis than a large trial. These findings imply that particularly in some urgent, life-saving or other critical circumstances for which no other effective methods are available, cautious recommendation based on the significant result of the first trial seems justifiable and could start use of an effective intervention by 5–8 years earlier.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilson W S Tam & Jin-Ling Tang & Meng-yang Di & Kelvin K F Tsoi, 2014. "How Often Does an Individual Trial Agree with Its Corresponding Meta-Analysis? A Meta-Epidemiologic Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0113994
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113994
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113994
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113994&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0113994?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0113994. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.