Cited by 85Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Empirical evaluation of which trial characteristics are associated with treatment effect estimates

Dechartres, Agnes, Trinquart, Ludovic, Faber, Timor, Ravaud, Philippe·2016·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective Meta-epidemiological studies provide empirical evidence of trial characteristics associated with treatment effects. We aimed to evaluate methods used and characteristics associated with treatment effect in these studies.Study design and setting For this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register, Web of Science, and PROSPERO up to April 2015. We particularly assessed four key methodological components: constitution of the collection, clustering of trials within meta-analyses, heterogeneity assessment, and adjustment on meta-confounders. We also assessed trial characteristics evaluated and their association with treatment effect.Results We included 56 meta-epidemiological studies with data from 3,199 meta-analyses, 32 networks, and 21,468 trials. Thirty-two (58%) were published since 2010. Only 13 (23%) included all key methodological components. Overall, 58 trial characteristics were assessed. Allocation concealment and sequence generation were assessed in 22 (39%) and 17 (30%) meta-epidemiological studies, respectively, and trial size in 9 (16%). These characteristics were consistently associated with treatment effect estimates with larger effects in trials with inadequate sequence generation or allocation concealment or smaller trials.Conclusions Key methodological components (e.g., constitution of the collection) were frequently missing. Concerning trial characteristics evaluated, there was consistent evidence that allocation concealment, sequence generation, and trial size were associated with treatment effect.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.005

Cites

105 of 105 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

1 of the 106 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dechartres, A., Trinquart, L., Faber, T., & Ravaud, P.
Affiliations
Inserm (FR)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-09
Volume
77
Pages
24-37
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2344229133
Cited by
85
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.72
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
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
meta-epidemiology, trial characteristics, treatment effect estimates, allocation concealment, sequence generation, trial size, meta-analysis, heterogeneity assessment
MeSH terms
Humans, Research Design, Epidemiologic Studies

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