CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 160Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Statistically significant meta-analyses of clinical trials have modest credibility and inflated effects

Pereira, Tiago V., Ioannidis, John P.A.·2011·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To assess whether nominally statistically significant effects in meta-analyses of clinical trials are true and whether their magnitude is inflated.Study design and setting Data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005 (issue 4) and 2010 (issue 1) were used. We considered meta-analyses with binary outcomes and four or more trials in 2005 with P<0.05 for the random-effects odds ratio (OR). We examined whether any of these meta-analyses had updated counterparts in 2010. We estimated the credibility (true-positive probability) under different prior assumptions and inflation in OR estimates in 2005.Results Four hundred sixty-one meta-analyses in 2005 were eligible, and 80 had additional trials included by 2010. The effect sizes (ORs) were smaller in the updating data (2005-2010) than in the respective meta-analyses in 2005 (median 0.85-fold, interquartile range [IQR]: 0.66-1.06), even more prominently for meta-analyses with less than 300 events in 2005 (median 0.67-fold, IQR: 0.54-0.96). Mean credibility of the 461 meta-analyses in 2005 was 63-84% depending on the assumptions made. Credibility estimates changed >20% in 19-31 (24-39%) of the 80 updated meta-analyses.Conclusions Most meta-analyses with nominally significant results pertain to truly nonnull effects, but exceptions are not uncommon. The magnitude of observed effects, especially in meta-analyses with limited evidence, is often inflated.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.012

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 160

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Pereira, T. V., & Ioannidis, J. P. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Ioannina (GR)
  • Tufts University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
64
Issue
10
Pages
1060-1069
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.012
OpenAlex
W2004108172
Cited by
160
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
FWCI
2.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministério da Educação
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
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
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
meta-analysis, statistical significance, effect size inflation, prior assumptions, binary outcomes, odds ratio, limited evidence, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Health Services Research, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Bias

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