Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Random error in cardiovascular meta-analyses: How common are false positive and false negative results?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Prevalence and incidence of various Cancer subtypes in patients with heart failure vs matched controls

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. The cardiac isovolumetric contraction time is an independent predictor of incident heart failure in the general population

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Carotid atherosclerosis markers and adverse cardiovascular events

    Research output: Contribution to journalLetterResearchpeer-review

  4. Cardiovascular complications in patients with total cavopulmonary connection: A nationwide cohort study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  5. Favorable five-year outcomes for heart failure diagnosed in younger patients without severe comorbidity

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. The Agents Intervening against Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit-Trial (AID-ICU trial):- a detailed statistical analysis plan

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Long-term mortality in the Intermediate care after emergency abdominal surgery (InCare) trial - a post-hoc follow-up study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. The PANSAID Randomized Clinical Trial: A pre-planned 1-year follow-up regarding harm

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Response

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations
BACKGROUND: Cochrane reviews are viewed as the gold standard in meta-analyses given their efforts to identify and limit systematic error which could cause spurious conclusions. The potential for random error to cause spurious conclusions in meta-analyses is less well appreciated. METHODS: We examined all reviews approved and published by the Cochrane Heart Group in the 2012 Cochrane Library that included at least one meta-analysis with 5 or more randomized trials. We used trial sequential analysis to classify statistically significant meta-analyses as true positives if their pooled sample size and/or their cumulative Z-curve crossed the O'Brien-Fleming monitoring boundaries for detecting a RRR of at least 25%. We classified meta-analyses that did not achieve statistical significance as true negatives if their pooled sample size was sufficient to reject a RRR of 25%. RESULTS: Twenty three (41%) of the 56 meta-analyses reported statistically significant results, and 19 (83%) were true positives. Of the 33 non-statistically significant meta-analyses, 12 (36%) were true negatives. Overall, 25 (45%) of the 56 published Cochrane reviews were too small to detect/rule out an effect size of at least 25% - 12 were acknowledged as such by their authors. Of the 22 meta-analyses which were reported to be conclusive by their authors, 12 (55%) contained insufficient data to detect/rule out a 25% relative treatment effect. CONCLUSION: False positive and false negative meta-analyses are common but infrequently recognized, even among methodologically robust reviews published by the Cochrane Heart Group. Meta-analysts and readers should incorporate trial sequential analysis when interpreting results.
Original languageEnglish
JournalInternational Journal of Cardiology
Volume168
Issue number2
Pages (from-to)1102–7
ISSN0167-5273
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Sep 2013

ID: 38373696