Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
Rigshospitalet - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  1. Data Resource Profile: The Copenhagen Hospital Biobank (CHB)

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Male origin microchimerism and ovarian cancer

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Cross-trait analyses with migraine reveal widespread pleiotropy and suggest a vascular component to migraine headache

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Cohort Profile: The Copenhagen Child Cohort Study (CCC2000)

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  5. Data Resource Profile: Committee of Nordic Assisted Reproductive Technology and Safety (CoNARTaS) cohort

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations
Results from apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be false. A limited number of events from a few small trials and the associated random error may be under-recognized sources of spurious findings. The information size (IS, i.e. number of participants) required for a reliable and conclusive meta-analysis should be no less rigorous than the sample size of a single, optimally powered randomized clinical trial. If a meta-analysis is conducted before a sufficient IS is reached, it should be evaluated in a manner that accounts for the increased risk that the result might represent a chance finding (i.e. applying trial sequential monitoring boundaries).
Original languageEnglish
JournalInternational Journal of Epidemiology
Volume38
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)276-86
Number of pages11
ISSN0300-5771
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2009

    Research areas

  • Data Interpretation, Statistical, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design, Treatment Outcome

ID: 38923244