| Ref ID | 39 |
| First Author | G. Imberger |
| Journal | ANESTHESIA & ANALGESIA |
| Year Of Publishing | 2015 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579662/ |
| Keywords |
• Power • Error • Statistical • Pain |
| Problem(s) |
• Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data • Small number of trials in meta-analyses • Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Meta-epidemiological analysis |
| First Author Country | Denmark |
| Aim | To assess power and imprecision of systematic reviews with meta-analyses that were reported as statistically significant in anaesthesia in the context of sparse data and repeated updates. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | In the 50 sampled systematic reviews, most nominally statistically significant meta-analyses of anesthesiologic interventions were underpowered, and many did not maintain their risk of type 1 error <5% if trial sequential analysis monitoring boundaries are applied. The median number of trials included was 8 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–14), the median number of participants was 964 (IQR, 523–1736), and the median number of participants with the outcome was 202 (IQR, 96–443). By using two trial sequential analysis approaches, only 12% (95% CI, 5%–25%) of the meta-analyses had power ≥80%, and only 32% (95% CI, 20%–47%) of the meta-analyses preserved the risk of type 1 error <5%. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 50 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 11870 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |