Cited by 640Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsDelphi Technique in Research

Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis

Detsky, Allan S., Naylor, C.David, O'Rourke, Keith, McGeer, Allison J., L'Abbé, Kristan A.·1992·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

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

Crossref · 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90085-2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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