Cargando…

Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To assess the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates within meta-analyses. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 93 meta-analyses (735 randomised controlled trials) assessing therapeutic interventions with binary outcomes, published in the 10 leading journal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dechartres, Agnes, Trinquart, Ludovic, Boutron, Isabelle, Ravaud, Philippe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3634626/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23616031
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2304
_version_ 1782267125755281408
author Dechartres, Agnes
Trinquart, Ludovic
Boutron, Isabelle
Ravaud, Philippe
author_facet Dechartres, Agnes
Trinquart, Ludovic
Boutron, Isabelle
Ravaud, Philippe
author_sort Dechartres, Agnes
collection PubMed
description Objective To assess the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates within meta-analyses. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 93 meta-analyses (735 randomised controlled trials) assessing therapeutic interventions with binary outcomes, published in the 10 leading journals of each medical subject category of the Journal Citation Reports or in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Data extraction Sample size, outcome data, and risk of bias extracted from each trial. Data synthesis Trials within each meta-analysis were sorted by their sample size: using quarters within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 with 25% of the smallest trials, to quarter 4 with 25% of the largest trials), and using size groups across meta-analyses (ranging from <50 to ≥1000 patients). Treatment effects were compared within each meta-analysis between quarters or between size groups by average ratios of odds ratios (where a ratio of odds ratios less than 1 indicates larger effects in smaller trials). Results Treatment effect estimates were significantly larger in smaller trials, regardless of sample size. Compared with quarter 4 (which included the largest trials), treatment effects were, on average, 32% larger in trials in quarter 1 (which included the smallest trials; ratio of odds ratios 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.82), 17% larger in trials in quarter 2 (0.83, 0.75 to 0.91), and 12% larger in trials in quarter 3 (0.88, 0.82 to 0.95). Similar results were obtained when comparing treatment effect estimates between different size groups. Compared with trials of 1000 patients or more, treatment effects were, on average, 48% larger in trials with fewer than 50 patients (0.52, 0.41 to 0.66) and 10% larger in trials with 500-999 patients (0.90, 0.82 to 1.00). Conclusions Treatment effect estimates differed within meta-analyses solely based on trial sample size, with stronger effect estimates seen in small to moderately sized trials than in the largest trials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3634626
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36346262013-04-25 Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study Dechartres, Agnes Trinquart, Ludovic Boutron, Isabelle Ravaud, Philippe BMJ Research Objective To assess the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates within meta-analyses. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 93 meta-analyses (735 randomised controlled trials) assessing therapeutic interventions with binary outcomes, published in the 10 leading journals of each medical subject category of the Journal Citation Reports or in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Data extraction Sample size, outcome data, and risk of bias extracted from each trial. Data synthesis Trials within each meta-analysis were sorted by their sample size: using quarters within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 with 25% of the smallest trials, to quarter 4 with 25% of the largest trials), and using size groups across meta-analyses (ranging from <50 to ≥1000 patients). Treatment effects were compared within each meta-analysis between quarters or between size groups by average ratios of odds ratios (where a ratio of odds ratios less than 1 indicates larger effects in smaller trials). Results Treatment effect estimates were significantly larger in smaller trials, regardless of sample size. Compared with quarter 4 (which included the largest trials), treatment effects were, on average, 32% larger in trials in quarter 1 (which included the smallest trials; ratio of odds ratios 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.82), 17% larger in trials in quarter 2 (0.83, 0.75 to 0.91), and 12% larger in trials in quarter 3 (0.88, 0.82 to 0.95). Similar results were obtained when comparing treatment effect estimates between different size groups. Compared with trials of 1000 patients or more, treatment effects were, on average, 48% larger in trials with fewer than 50 patients (0.52, 0.41 to 0.66) and 10% larger in trials with 500-999 patients (0.90, 0.82 to 1.00). Conclusions Treatment effect estimates differed within meta-analyses solely based on trial sample size, with stronger effect estimates seen in small to moderately sized trials than in the largest trials. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2013-04-24 /pmc/articles/PMC3634626/ /pubmed/23616031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2304 Text en © Dechartres et al 2013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.
spellingShingle Research
Dechartres, Agnes
Trinquart, Ludovic
Boutron, Isabelle
Ravaud, Philippe
Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
title Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
title_full Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
title_fullStr Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
title_full_unstemmed Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
title_short Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
title_sort influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3634626/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23616031
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2304
work_keys_str_mv AT dechartresagnes influenceoftrialsamplesizeontreatmenteffectestimatesmetaepidemiologicalstudy
AT trinquartludovic influenceoftrialsamplesizeontreatmenteffectestimatesmetaepidemiologicalstudy
AT boutronisabelle influenceoftrialsamplesizeontreatmenteffectestimatesmetaepidemiologicalstudy
AT ravaudphilippe influenceoftrialsamplesizeontreatmenteffectestimatesmetaepidemiologicalstudy