The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evolution of treatment effects over time: Empirical insight from recursive cumulative metaanalyses
Open accessAbstract
Evidence on how much medical interventions work may change over time. It is important to determine what fluctuations in the treatment effect reported by randomized trials and their metaanalyses may be expected and whether extreme fluctuations signal future major changes. We applied recursive cumulative metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the relative change in the pooled treatment effect (odds ratio) over time for 60 interventions in two medical fields (pregnancy/perinatal medicine, n = 45 interventions; myocardial infarction, n = 15 interventions). We evaluated the scatter of relative changes for different numbers of total patients in previous trials. Outlier cases were noted with changes greater than 2.5 standard deviations of the expected. With 500 accumulated patients, the pooled odds ratio may change by 0.6- to 1.7-fold in the immediate future. When 2000 patients have already been randomized, the respective figures are between 0.74- and 1.35-fold for pregnancy/perinatal medicine and between 0.83- and 1.21-fold for myocardial infarction studies. Extreme early fluctuations in the treatment effect were observed in three interventions (magnesium in myocardial infarction, calcium and antiplatelet agents for prevention of preeclampsia), where recent mega-trials have contradicted prior metaanalyses, as well as in four other examples where early large treatment effects were dissipated when more data appeared. Past experience may help quantify the uncertainty surrounding the treatment effects reported in early clinical trials and their metaanalyses. Early wide oscillations in the evolution of the treatment effect for specific interventions may sometimes signal further major changes in the future.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127
Quantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Schmid, C. H. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-9-199711010-00008 · Cited by 2,517
Self-citationCumulative Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials for Myocardial Infarction
Lau, J., Antman, E. M., Jimenez-Silva, J., Kupelnick, B., Mosteller, F., & Chalmers, T. C. (1992) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199207233270406 · Cited by 1,140
Self-citationTrial of Calcium to Prevent Preeclampsia
Levine, R. J., Hauth, J. C., Curet, L. B., Sibai, B. M., Catalano, P. M., Morris, C. D., DerSimonian, R., Esterlitz, J. R., Raymond, E. G., Bild, D. E., et al. (1997) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199707103370201 · Cited by 634
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.4.281 · Cited by 632
Self-citationLarge Trials vs Meta-analysis of Smaller Trials: How Do Their Results Compare?
Cappelleri, J. C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540160054033 · Cited by 336
Understanding research synthesis (meta-analysis).
Mosteller, F., & Colditz, G. A. (1996) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.pu.17.050196.000245 · Cited by 228
Cited by
The case of the misleading funnel plot
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., & Olkin, I. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597 · Cited by 1,766
Self-citationAmstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0022170 · Cited by 1,654
Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias
Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.-W., Cronin, E., Decullier, E., Easterbrook, P. J., Von Elm, E., Gamble, C., et al. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003081 · Cited by 1,546
Self-citationNeoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Systemic Treatment in Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Mauri, D., Pavlidis, N., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/dji021 · Cited by 1,200
Self-citationDwan, K., Gamble, C., Williamson, P. R., Kirkham, J. J., & the Reporting Bias Group (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066844 · Cited by 1,127
Metadata
- Authors
- Ioannidis, J. P. A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2001-01-23
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 831-836
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2023598977
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 16.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Evolution of treatment effects over time: Empirical insight from recursive cumulative metaanalyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.021529998
- The paper
- Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2001). Evolution of treatment effects over time: Empirical insight from recursive cumulative metaanalyses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.021529998
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.