Systematic Reviews: Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta-analyses?
Open accessAbstract
Many randomised controlled trials compare treatments that will produce only moderate differences in outcome, but these differences can be clinically important. However, they are difficult to assess reliably and require a large amount of randomised evidence. This can be achieved through large prospective randomised trials which will accrue future patients, the meta-analysis of results from randomised trials involving patients from the past, or--ideally--both. The techniques require that all possible biases are minimised, and in meta-analyses this can best be achieved by ensuring that all of the randomised evidence--both trials and participants in those trials--is included. The meta-analysis of individual patient data has been described as the gold standard for this approach. It will remove many of the problems associated with relying solely on published data and some of the problems arising from a reliance on aggregate data, and will also add to the analyses that can be performed. Such projects, however, require considerable time and effort.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
IPD-MA has been described as the gold standard of systematic reviews.
“Given these reasons and the advantages over AD-MAs, the IPD-MA has been described as the gold standard of systematic reviews [46].”
From Acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain: Protocol of a systematic review and individual participant data meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as [46]
Cites
Peto, R., Pike, M. C., Armitage, P., Breslow, N. E., Cox, D. R., Howard, S. V., Mantel, N., McPherson, K., Peto, J., & Smith, P. G. (1977) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.1977.1 · Cited by 8,285 · see citing works
Peto, R., Pike, M. C., Armitage, P., Breslow, N. E., Cox, D. R., Howard, S. V., Mantel, N., McPherson, K., Peto, J., & Smith, P. G. (1976) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.1976.220 · Cited by 2,294 · see citing works
Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference?
Stewart, L. A., & Parmar, M. (1993) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)93004-k · Cited by 771 · see citing works
Self-citationPublication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials.
Simes, R. J. (1986) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1986.4.10.1529 · Cited by 747 · see citing works
CHALMERS, I. (1993) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26345.x · Cited by 561 · see citing works
Gregory, W., Richards, M. A., & Malpas, J. S. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1992.10.2.334 · Cited by 340 · see citing works
Postradiation osteogenic sarcoma of bone and soft tissues. A clinicopathologic study of 66 patients
Huvos, A. G., WOODARD, H. Q., Cahan, W. G., Higinbotham, N. L., Stewart, F. W., Butler, A., & Bretsky, S. S. (1985) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19850315)55:6 · Cited by 325 · see citing works
Chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer: An overview of randomised clinical trials
Stewart, L. A., Aabo, K., Adnitt, P. I., Adams, M., Alberts, D. S., Barley, V., Bell, D. R., Bianchi, U., Blessing, J. A., Buyse, M. E., et al. (1991) · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Self-citationHoover, H. C., Brandhorst, J. S., Peters, L. C., Surdyke, M. G., Takeshita, Y., Madariaga, J., Muenz, L. R., & Hanna, M. G. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1993.11.3.390 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Large‐Scale Randomized Evidence: Large, Simple Trials and Overviews of Trials
Peto, R., Collins, R., & Gray, R. G. (1993) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26369.x · Cited by 71 · see citing works
REVIEW OF MORTALITY RESULTS IN RANDOMISED TRIALS IN EARLY BREAST CANCER
(1984) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(84)92756-9 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Pignon, J. P., & Arriagada, R. (1993) · PubMed · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Beyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732312452938 · Cited by 2,608 · see citing works
Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade
Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006) · Journal of Chiropractic Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0899-3467(07)60142-6 · Cited by 2,224 · see citing works
Relapse prevention with antidepressant drug treatment in depressive disorders: a systematic review
Geddes, J. R., Carney, S. M., Davies, C., Furukawa, T. A., Kupfer, D. J., Frank, E., & Goodwin, G. M. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12599-8 · Cited by 945 · see citing works
Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology
Debray, T. P. A., Moons, K. G. M., van Valkenhoef, G., Efthimiou, O., Hummel, N., Groenwold, R. H. H., Reitsma, J. B., & on behalf of the GetReal methods review group (2015) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1160 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
Edwards, P., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Roberts, I., & Wentz, R. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1190 · Cited by 340 · see citing works
Self-citationTime to publication for results of clinical trials
Hopewell, S., Clarke, M. J., Stewart, L., & Tierney, J. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000011.pub2 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
Self-citationMeta-analysis: Unresolved issues and future developments
Smith, G. D., & Egger, M. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7126.221 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Meta‐analyses of the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia: conceptual and methodological issues
Saha, S., Chant, D., & Mcgrath, J. (2008) · International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1002/mpr.240 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Furukawa, T. A., Efthimiou, O., Weitz, E. S., Cipriani, A., Keller, M. B., Kocsis, J. H., Klein, D. N., Michalak, J., Salanti, G., Cuijpers, P., et al. (2018) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000489227 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Panagioti, M., Bower, P., Kontopantelis, E., Lovell, K., Gilbody, S., Waheed, W., Dickens, C., Archer, J., Simon, G., Ell, K., et al. (2016) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.1794 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Lin, J., Scott, W., Carpenter, L., Norton, S., Domhardt, M., Baumeister, H., & McCracken, L. M. (2019) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1044-2 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Clarke, M. J., & Stewart, L. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Clarke, M J
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1994-10-15
- Volume
- 309
- Issue
- 6960
- Pages
- 1007-1010
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- PMC
- PMC2541306
- OpenAlex
- W1742647530
- Cited by
- 117
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (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
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- individual patient data meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, aggregated data, publication bias, trial size, statistical power
- MeSH terms
- Data Collection, Humans, Prospective Studies, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care
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
