Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,171

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials

Open access
LeLorier, Jacques, Grégoire, Geneviève, Benhaddad, Abdeltif, Lapierre, Julie, Derderian, François·1997·New England Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1056/nejm199708213370806
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses are now widely used to provide evidence to support clinical strategies. However, large randomized, controlled trials are considered the gold standard in evaluating the efficacy of clinical interventions. METHODS: We compared the results of large randomized, controlled trials (involving 1000 patients or more) that were published in four journals (the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association) with the results of meta-analyses published earlier on the same topics. Regarding the principal and secondary outcomes, we judged whether the findings of the randomized trials agreed with those of the corresponding meta-analyses, and we determined whether the study results were positive (indicating that treatment improved the outcome) or negative (indicating that the outcome with treatment was the same or worse than without it) at the conventional level of statistical significance (P<0.05). RESULTS: We identified 12 large randomized, controlled trials and 19 meta-analyses addressing the same questions. For a total of 40 primary and secondary outcomes, agreement between the meta-analyses and the large clinical trials was only fair (kappa= 0.35; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.64). The positive predictive value of the meta-analyses was 68 percent, and the negative predictive value 67 percent. However, the difference in point estimates between the randomized trials and the meta-analyses was statistically significant for only 5 of the 40 comparisons (12 percent). Furthermore, in each case of disagreement a statistically significant effect of treatment was found by one method, whereas no statistically significant effect was found by the other. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the 12 large randomized, controlled trials that we studied were not predicted accurately 35 percent of the time by the meta-analyses published previously on the same topics.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199708213370806

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00110-C · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00171-L · DOI
  3. 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00149-K · DOI
  4. 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90064-0 · DOI
  5. Abrahamson JH, 1990, Public Health Rev, 18, 1
  6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)90646-0 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Mantel N, 1959, J Natl Cancer Inst, 22, 719
  8. McNemar Q. Psychological statistics. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley, 1962.
  9. 10.1016/0140-6736(93)91539-X · DOI · Paper page
  10. Yusuf S, 1985, Eur Heart J, 6, 556, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a061905 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Yusuf S, 1990, Circulation, 82, II
  12. 10.1016/0140-6736(92)91828-V · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1136/bmj.303.6816.1499 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 1994, Lancet, 344, 1383
  15. Law MR, 1994, BMJ, 308, 367, 10.1136/bmj.308.6925.367 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1056/NEJM199010183231606 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1136/bmj.305.6844.15 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1016/0140-6736(93)91879-Q · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1136/bmj.306.6874.366 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1001/jama.269.7.898 · doi:10.1001/jama.269.7.898 · Paper page
  21. 1993, Lancet, 342, 821
  22. 10.1016/S0002-9149(88)80084-5 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92614-Y · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)92614-y
  24. 10.1016/0140-6736(92)93223-A · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1136/bmj.305.6859.913 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Lassen MR, 1991, Semin Thromb Hemost, 17, 284
  27. 10.1016/S0140-6736(94)92633-6 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1001/jama.266.2.260 · DOI
  29. 1994, Lancet, 343, 1115
  30. 10.1016/S0140-6736(88)91906-X · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1056/NEJM199405053301801 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Hryniuk W, 1986, J Clin Oncol, 4, 1162, 10.1200/JCO.1986.4.8.1162 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1001/jama.267.9.1213 · DOI
  34. Cutler JA, 1991, Hypertension, 17, I27, 10.1161/01.HYP.17.1_Suppl.I27 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Whelton PK, 1989, Circulation, 80, II
  36. Cutler JA, 1990, Am J Hypertens, 3, 137S, 10.1093/ajh/3.8.137 · DOI
  37. Hollis JF, 1993, Ann Intern Med, 118, 521, 10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00006 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1001/jama.259.19.2883 · doi:10.1001/jama.259.19.2883 · Paper page
  39. 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00098-B · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1378/chest.108.4_Supplement.227S · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1016/0002-9343(87)90450-5 · DOI

Cited by

See all 1,171

Metadata

Authors
LeLorier, J., Grégoire, G., Benhaddad, A., Lapierre, J., & Derderian, F.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Massachusetts Medical Society
Published
1997-08-21
Volume
337
Issue
8
Pages
536-542
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
DOI
10.1056/nejm199708213370806
OpenAlex
W2328451703
Cited by
1,171
References
2
FWCI
136.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199708213370806
The paper
LeLorier, J., Grégoire, G., Benhaddad, A., Lapierre, J., & Derderian, F. (1997). Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199708213370806

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.