CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 121Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Accumulating Research: A Systematic Account of How Cumulative Meta-Analyses Would Have Provided Knowledge, Improved Health, Reduced Harm and Saved Resources

Open access
Clarke, Mike, Brice, Anne, Chalmers, Iain·2014·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0102670PMC PMC4113310
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: "Cumulative meta-analysis" describes a statistical procedure to calculate, retrospectively, summary estimates from the results of similar trials every time the results of a further trial in the series had become available. In the early 1990 s, comparisons of cumulative meta-analyses of treatments for myocardial infarction with advice promulgated through medical textbooks showed that research had continued long after robust estimates of treatment effects had accumulated, and that medical textbooks had overlooked strong, existing evidence from trials. Cumulative meta-analyses have subsequently been used to assess what could have been known had new studies been informed by systematic reviews of relevant existing evidence and how waste might have been reduced. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a systematic approach to identify and summarise the findings of cumulative meta-analyses of studies of the effects of clinical interventions, published from 1992 to 2012. Searches were done of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Methodology Register and Science Citation Index. A total of 50 eligible reports were identified, including more than 1,500 cumulative meta-analyses. A variety of themes are illustrated with specific examples. The studies showed that initially positive results became null or negative in meta-analyses as more trials were done; that early null or negative results were over-turned; that stable results (beneficial, harmful and neutral) would have been seen had a meta-analysis been done before the new trial; and that additional trials had been much too small to resolve the remaining uncertainties. CONCLUSIONS: This large, unique collection of cumulative meta-analyses highlights how a review of the existing evidence might have helped researchers, practitioners, patients and funders make more informed decisions and choices about new trials over decades of research. This would have led to earlier uptake of effective interventions in practice, less exposure of trial participants to less effective treatments, and reduced waste resulting from unjustified research.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0102670

Cites

74 of 74 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 74 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. G Deshpande, 2010, Trial sequential analysis of updated meta-analysis of probiotics for preventing necrotising enterocolitis in preterm VLBW neonates: are the results conclusive? Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, Conference: 14th Annual Congress of the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand, PSANZ 2010 Wellington New Zealand, 46, 65
  2. S Palmer, 2010, Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in people with chronic kidney disease: a cumulative meta-analysis, NDT Plus, Conference: 17th ERA-EDTA Congress - II DGfN Congress Munich Germany, 3, iii80

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–121 of 121

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Clarke, M., Brice, A., & Chalmers, I.
Affiliations
Queen's University Belfast (GB)
Corresponding author
Clarke, Mike
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2014-07-28
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
e102670
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0102670
PMC
PMC4113310
OpenAlex
W2087358018
Cited by
120
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3
FWCI
11.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
cumulative meta-analysis, research waste, clinical trial design, treatment effect heterogeneity, negative results, research funding allocation, evidence-based decision making, myocardial infarction treatment, medical textbooks
MeSH terms
Health Status, Humans, Harm Reduction, Resource Allocation

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