In the Era of Systematic Reviews, Does the Size of an Individual Trial Still Matter?

Background to the debate: Systematic reviews that combine high-quality evidence from several trials are now widely considered to be at the top of the hierarchy of clinical evidence. Given the primacy of systematic reviews—and the fact that individual clinical trials rarely provide definitive answers...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guyatt, Gordon H, Mills, Edward J, Elbourne, Diana
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2008
Materias:
The PLoS Medicine Debate
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174963/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18177203
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050004
_version_ 1782145398201122816
author Guyatt, Gordon H
Mills, Edward J
Elbourne, Diana
author_facet Guyatt, Gordon H
Mills, Edward J
Elbourne, Diana
author_sort Guyatt, Gordon H
collection PubMed
description Background to the debate: Systematic reviews that combine high-quality evidence from several trials are now widely considered to be at the top of the hierarchy of clinical evidence. Given the primacy of systematic reviews—and the fact that individual clinical trials rarely provide definitive answers to a clinical research question—some commentators question whether the sample size calculation for an individual trial still matters. Others point out that small trials can still be potentially misleading.
format Text
id pubmed-2174963
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-21749632008-01-05 In the Era of Systematic Reviews, Does the Size of an Individual Trial Still Matter? Guyatt, Gordon H Mills, Edward J Elbourne, Diana PLoS Med The PLoS Medicine Debate Background to the debate: Systematic reviews that combine high-quality evidence from several trials are now widely considered to be at the top of the hierarchy of clinical evidence. Given the primacy of systematic reviews—and the fact that individual clinical trials rarely provide definitive answers to a clinical research question—some commentators question whether the sample size calculation for an individual trial still matters. Others point out that small trials can still be potentially misleading. Public Library of Science 2008-01 2008-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC2174963/ /pubmed/18177203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050004 Text en © 2008 Guyatt et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle The PLoS Medicine Debate
Guyatt, Gordon H
Mills, Edward J
Elbourne, Diana
In the Era of Systematic Reviews, Does the Size of an Individual Trial Still Matter?
title In the Era of Systematic Reviews, Does the Size of an Individual Trial Still Matter?
title_full In the Era of Systematic Reviews, Does the Size of an Individual Trial Still Matter?
title_fullStr In the Era of Systematic Reviews, Does the Size of an Individual Trial Still Matter?
title_full_unstemmed In the Era of Systematic Reviews, Does the Size of an Individual Trial Still Matter?
title_short In the Era of Systematic Reviews, Does the Size of an Individual Trial Still Matter?
title_sort in the era of systematic reviews, does the size of an individual trial still matter?
topic The PLoS Medicine Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174963/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18177203
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050004
work_keys_str_mv AT guyattgordonh intheeraofsystematicreviewsdoesthesizeofanindividualtrialstillmatter
AT millsedwardj intheeraofsystematicreviewsdoesthesizeofanindividualtrialstillmatter
AT elbournediana intheeraofsystematicreviewsdoesthesizeofanindividualtrialstillmatter

Ejemplares similares