Cited by 14Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsMigraine and Headache StudiesStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

A meta-regression analysis shows no impact of design characteristics on outcome in trials on tension-type headaches

Verhagen, A.P., de Vet, H.C.W., Willemsen, S., Stijnen, Th·2008·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objectives In the conduct of a systematic review or meta-analysis, many possible sources of bias exist, such as bias caused by design characteristics. We studied the influence of the methodological study characteristics of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the outcome in a systematic review on conservative treatments in patients with tension-type headache (TTH).Study design and setting Included were RCTs from a systematic review on TTH, which were a control group receiving a placebo or no treatment and presented data on recovery or headache severity, intensity, or frequency. Design characteristics were assessed using the Delphi list. Regression analysis is performed on separate design characteristics on size of treatment effect.Results Out of the original data set of 146 trials, 61 trials fulfilled our selection criteria. The number of trials presenting only dichotomous data was larger than trials presenting only continuous data. All study characteristics show a nonsignificant relation with the effect estimate. Whether outcome is presented dichotomous or continuous appears to have a significant impact on treatment effect estimates.Conclusion In this study, sample design characteristics do not show to have an impact on treatment effect estimates, but the way the treatment effect is measured has a significant impact.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.006

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C. W., Willemsen, S., & Stijnen, T.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Verhagen, A.P.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-08
Volume
61
Issue
8
Pages
813-818
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2038134238
Cited by
14
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 3
FWCI
3.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Migraine and Headache Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
tension-type headache, randomized controlled trials, design features, treatment effect size, conservative treatment, outcome measurement, meta-analysis bias, placebo comparison
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Delphi Technique, Humans, Regression Analysis, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Tension-Type Headache

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