- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Small number of trials in meta-analyses
- Many meta-analyses of rare events in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were underpowered
Ref ID | 811 |
First Author | P. Jia |
Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
Year Of Publishing | 2021 |
URL | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435620311884 |
Keywords |
Cochrane Statistical Power |
Problem(s) |
Small number of trials in meta-analyses Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews |
Number of systematic reviews included | 4177 |
Summary of Findings | From 4,177 meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2003 to May 2018 (no. of systematic reviews not reported), only 11.81% of meta-analyses reached sufficient power. The median power to detect 10%, 30%, and 50% relative risk reduction were 0.06 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.05 to 0.06), 0.08 (IQR: 0.06 to 0.15), and 0.17 (IQR: 0.10 to 0.42), respectively); the corresponding proportion of meta-analyses that reached sufficient power were 0.32%, 3.68%, and 11.81%. Meta-analyses incorporating data from more studies had higher probability to achieve a sufficient power (rate ratio = 2.49, 95% CI: 1.76, 3.52, P < 0.001). |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |