Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials? (Transcript of an oral presentation, modified by the editors)
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Meta-analyses are often built on an assumption that directions of effect are consistent across studies, yet formal tests of this supposition are not routinely undertaken.
“Meta-analyses are often built on an assumption that directions of effect are consistent across studies (Peto, 1987), yet formal tests of this important supposition are not routinely undertaken.”
From A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis (2009) · cites this paper as Peto, 1987
Interpreting the random-effects assumption as random sampling of studies is inappropriate because studies are individually designed dependent on previous results and the evolutionary process of scientific research.
“This implies that the types of participants, natures of exposures, design aspects, and so on, are randomly selected from a distribution of possibilities, which is an inappropriate interpretation because studies are individually designed dependent on the results of previous studies (Peto, 1987) and the evolutionary process of scientific research (Colditz et al., 1995).”
From A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis (2009) · cites this paper as Peto, 1987
Cites
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205 · see citing works
Self-citationWhy do we need some large, simple randomized trials?
Yusuf, S., Collins, R., & Peto, R. (1984) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780030421 · Cited by 700 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634 · see citing works
How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1187 · Cited by 3,026 · see citing works
A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2009) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2008.00552.x · Cited by 2,569 · see citing works
“…aspects, and so on, are randomly selected from a distribution of possibilities, which is an inappropriate interpretation because studies are individually designed dependent on the results of previous studies (Peto, 1987) and the evolutionary process of scientific research (Colditz et al., 1995).”
BackgroundResultSystematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated
Thompson, S. G. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6965.1351 · Cited by 1,017 · see citing works
A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses
Oxman, A. D., & Guyatt, G. H. (1992) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-116-1-78 · Cited by 914 · see citing works
Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice
Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07683-3 · Cited by 774 · see citing works
Rates and risk factors for dementia and Alzheimer’s disease: Results from EURODEM pooled analyses
Launer, L. J., Andersen, K., Dewey, M. E., Letenneur, L., Ott, A., Amaducci, L. A., Brayne, C., Copeland, J. R. M., Dartigues, J.-F., Kragh-Sorensen, P., et al. (1999) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.52.1.78 · Cited by 758 · see citing works
A brief history of research synthesis
Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (2002) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/0163278702025001003 · Cited by 552 · see citing works
Formulating Questions and Locating Primary Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews
Counsell, C. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-5-199709010-00008 · Cited by 505 · see citing works
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: meta-analysis of efficacy and acceptability.
Song, F., Freemantle, N., Sheldon, T. A., House, A., Watson, P., Long, A., & Mason, J. (1993) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.306.6879.683 · Cited by 399 · see citing works
Modeling Publication Selection Effects in Meta-Analysis
Hedges, L. V. (1992) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1177011364 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: how many are randomized?
Wu, T., Li, Y., Bian, Z., Liu, G., & Moher, D. (2009) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-10-46 · Cited by 229 · see citing works
Can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)70200-2 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Application of meta-analysis in reviewing occupational cohort studies.
Wong, O., & Raabe, G. K. (1996) · Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1136/oem.53.12.793 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Hasan, S. S., Clavarino, A. M., Mamun, A. A., Doi, S. A. R., & Kairuz, T. (2013) · Asian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2013.09.008 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
- Authors
- Peto, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Peto, Richard
- ORCID
- Peto, Richard
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1987-04
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 233-240
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2052220992
- Cited by
- 409
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 17.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- systematic reviews, evidence synthesis
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Random Allocation, Research Design, Statistics as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
