Trial sequential analyses of meta-analyses of complications in laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy: more randomized patients are needed

Frederik Keus; Jørn Wetterslev; Christian Gluud; Hein G Gooszen; Cornelis JHM van Laarhoven

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.023

Trial sequential analyses of meta-analyses of complications in laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy: more randomized patients are needed

Frederik Keus, Jørn Wetterslev, Christian Gluud, Hein G Gooszen, Cornelis JHM van Laarhoven

Copenhagen Trial Unit

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Conclusions based on meta-analyses of randomized trials carry a status of "truth." Methodological components may identify trials with systematic errors ("bias"). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) evaluates random errors in meta-analysis. We analyzed meta-analyses on laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy regarding different outcome measures for the occurrence of type I errors.

Original language	English
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	63
Issue number	3
Pages (from-to)	246-56
Number of pages	11
ISSN	0895-4356
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.023
Publication status	Published - 1 Mar 2010

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.023

Cite this

Trial sequential analyses of meta-analyses of complications in laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy: more randomized patients are needed. / Keus, Frederik; Wetterslev, Jørn; Gluud, Christian et al.
In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 63, No. 3, 01.03.2010, p. 246-56.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

@article{61f26642123f4b1db6a8dcd151d5e85f,

title = "Trial sequential analyses of meta-analyses of complications in laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy: more randomized patients are needed",

abstract = "Conclusions based on meta-analyses of randomized trials carry a status of {"}truth.{"} Methodological components may identify trials with systematic errors ({"}bias{"}). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) evaluates random errors in meta-analysis. We analyzed meta-analyses on laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy regarding different outcome measures for the occurrence of type I errors.",

author = "Frederik Keus and J{\o}rn Wetterslev and Christian Gluud and Gooszen, \{Hein G\} and \{JHM van Laarhoven\}, Cornelis",

year = "2010",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.023",

language = "English",

volume = "63",

pages = "246--56",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Trial sequential analyses of meta-analyses of complications in laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy: more randomized patients are needed

AU - Keus, Frederik

AU - Wetterslev, Jørn

AU - Gluud, Christian

AU - Gooszen, Hein G

AU - JHM van Laarhoven, Cornelis

PY - 2010/3/1

Y1 - 2010/3/1

N2 - Conclusions based on meta-analyses of randomized trials carry a status of "truth." Methodological components may identify trials with systematic errors ("bias"). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) evaluates random errors in meta-analysis. We analyzed meta-analyses on laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy regarding different outcome measures for the occurrence of type I errors.

AB - Conclusions based on meta-analyses of randomized trials carry a status of "truth." Methodological components may identify trials with systematic errors ("bias"). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) evaluates random errors in meta-analysis. We analyzed meta-analyses on laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy regarding different outcome measures for the occurrence of type I errors.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/75949094215

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.023

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.023

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 20004553

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 63

SP - 246

EP - 256

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

IS - 3

ER -

Trial sequential analyses of meta-analyses of complications in laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy: more randomized patients are needed

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this