Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis
Abstract
Meta-analysis is a method of synthesizing evidence from multiple sources. It has been increasingly applied to combine results from randomized trials of therapeutic strategies. Unfortunately there is often variation in the quality of the trials that are included in meta-analyses, limiting the value of combining the results in an overview. This variation in quality can lead to both bias and reduction in precision of the estimate of the therapy's effectiveness. There are a number of methods for quantifying the quality of trials including the detailed Chalmers system and simple scales. The nature of the relationship between these quality scores and the true estimate of effectiveness is unknown at this time. We discuss four methods of incorporating quality into meta-analysis: threshold score as inclusion/exclusion criterion, use of quality score as a weight in statistical pooling, visual plot of effect size against quality score and sequential combination of trial results based on quality score. The last method permits an examination of the relation between quality and both bias and precision on the pooled estimates. We conclude that while it is possible to incorporate the effect of variation of quality of individual trials into overviews, this issue requires more study.
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?
Methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Detsky Quality Scale, and all selected studies scored more than 12 and were included.
“Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Detsky Quality Scale for Randomized Trials [17].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 640
- Authors
- Detsky, A. S., Naylor, C. D., O'Rourke, K., McGeer, A. J., & L'Abbé, K. A.
- Affiliations
- Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Detsky, Allan S.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1992-03
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 255-265
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1994898034
- Cited by
- 640
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 35
- FWCI
- 28.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- trial quality, meta-analysis, bias, quality scores, effect size
- MeSH terms
- Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Quality Control, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials 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