CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 559Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study

Open access
Nuesch, E., Trelle, S., Reichenbach, S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Tschannen, B., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Juni, P.·2010·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.c3515PMC PMC2905513
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the presence and extent of small study effects in clinical osteoarthritis research. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCES: 13 meta-analyses including 153 randomised trials (41 605 patients) that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patients' reported pain as an outcome. METHODS: We compared estimated benefits of treatment between large trials (at least 100 patients per arm) and small trials, explored funnel plots supplemented with lines of predicted effects and contours of significance, and used three approaches to estimate treatment effects: meta-analyses including all trials irrespective of sample size, meta-analyses restricted to large trials, and treatment effects predicted for large trials. RESULTS: On average, treatment effects were more beneficial in small than in large trials (difference in effect sizes -0.21, 95% confidence interval -0.34 to -0.08, P=0.001). Depending on criteria used, six to eight funnel plots indicated small study effects. In six of 13 meta-analyses, the overall pooled estimate suggested a clinically relevant, significant benefit of treatment, whereas analyses restricted to large trials and predicted effects in large trials yielded smaller non-significant estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Small study effects can often distort results of meta-analyses. The influence of small trials on estimated treatment effects should be routinely assessed.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.c3515

Cites

59 of 59 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

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 62 references

3 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 558

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Nuesch, E., Trelle, S., Reichenbach, S., Rutjes, A. W. S., Tschannen, B., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., & Juni, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
ORCID
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2010-07-16
Volume
341
Issue
jul16 1
Pages
c3515-c3515
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
DOI
10.1136/bmj.c3515
PMC
PMC2905513
OpenAlex
W2063738853
Cited by
559
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 28
FWCI
32.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (115067, 104762, 66377, 066377, 66378)
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
small-study effects, osteoarthritis, hip osteoarthritis, knee osteoarthritis, meta-epidemiology, trial size, treatment effect estimation, pain outcomes, funnel plot, publication bias
MeSH terms
Humans, Pain, Osteoarthritis, Hip, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Sample Size, Osteoarthritis, Knee

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