Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,283

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses

Kjaergard, Lise L., Villumsen, John, Gluud, Christian·2001·Annals of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-135-11-200112040-00010
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: To explore whether reported methodologic quality affects estimated intervention effects in randomized trials and contributes to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: Meta-analyses of randomized trials that included at least one large trial (>/=1000 participants) were included, regardless of the therapeutic area. Eligible meta-analyses were identified through electronic searches and bibliographies of relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: Full-length randomized trials. DATA EXTRACTION: Methodologic quality was assessed according to reported randomization, double blinding, and follow-up as separate components and by using the Jadad composite scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen meta-analyses involving 190 randomized trials from eight therapeutic areas were included. Compared with large trials, intervention effects were exaggerated in small trials with inadequate allocation sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.25 to 0.83]; P = 0.011), inadequate allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.49 [CI, 0.27 to 0.86]; P = 0.014), and no double blinding (ratio of odds ratios, 0.52 [CI, 0.28 to 0.96]; P = 0.01). Large trials did not differ significantly from small trials with adequate generation of the allocation sequence, adequate allocation concealment, or adequate double blinding. No association was seen between reported follow-up and intervention effects. The Jadad scale provided no additional information because the scale and the quality components overlapped substantially. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, and double blinding lead to exaggerated estimates of intervention benefit and may contribute to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses.

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 · 10.7326/0003-4819-135-11-200112040-00010

Cites

10 of 10 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 10 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kjaergard, L. L., Villumsen, J., & Gluud, C.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American College of Physicians
Published
2001-12-04
Volume
135
Issue
11
Pages
982-989
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
DOI
10.7326/0003-4819-135-11-200112040-00010
OpenAlex
W2117294447
Cited by
2,283
References
10
FWCI
72.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.