- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Small number of trials in meta-analyses
- False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review
Ref ID | 134 |
First Author | G. Imberger |
Journal | BMJ OPEN |
Year Of Publishing | 2016 |
URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985805/pdf/bmjopen-2016-011890.pdf |
Keywords |
Cochrane Statistical Power General medical |
Problem(s) |
Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data Small number of trials in meta-analyses |
Number of systematic reviews included | 100 |
Summary of Findings | Using conventional cumulative meta-analysis, false positives were present in seven of the 100 included meta-analyses (7%, 95% CI 3% to 14%), occurring more than once in three. The total number of false positives was 14 and trial sequential analysis prevented 13 of these (93%, 95% CI 68% to 98%). In a post hoc analysis, the authors found that Cochrane meta-analyses that are negative are 1.67 times more likely to be updated (95% CI 0.92 to 2.68) than those that are positive. |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Yes |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |