Document Detail


Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  22334559     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
OBJECTIVE: To compare estimates of intervention effects between single centre and multicentre randomised controlled trials with continuous outcomes.
DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study.
DATA SOURCES: 26 meta-analyses totalling 292 randomised controlled trials (177 single centre, 115 multicentre) with continuous outcomes published between January 2007 and January 2010 in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews.
DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted on characteristics of trials, single or multicentre status, risk of bias using the risk of bias tool of the Cochrane Collaboration, and results.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The intervention effects were estimated with standardised mean differences. For each meta-analysis, random effects meta-regression was used to estimate the difference in standardised mean differences between single centre and multicentre trials. Differences in standardised mean differences were then pooled across meta-analyses by a random-effects meta-analysis model. A combined difference in standardised mean differences of less than 0 indicated that single centre trials showed larger treatment effects, on average, than did multicentre trials. Because single centre trials may be more prone to publication bias and may have lower methodological quality than multicentre trials, sensitivity analyses were done with adjustment for sample size and domains of the risk of bias tool.
RESULTS: Single centre trials showed larger intervention effects than did multicentre trials (combined difference in standardised mean differences -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.17 to -0.01, P=0.04), with low heterogeneity across individual meta-analyses (I(2)=0%, between meta-analyses variance τ(2)=0.00). Adjustment for sample size slightly attenuated the difference (-0.08, -0.17 to 0.01). Adjustment for risk of bias yielded similar estimates with wider confidence intervals, some of them crossing 0 (-0.09, -0.17 to 0.00 for overall risk of bias).
CONCLUSIONS: On average, single centre clinical trials with continuous outcomes showed slightly larger intervention effects than did multicentre trials. Further research is needed to investigate potential causes of these differences.
Authors:
Aïda Bafeta; Agnes Dechartres; Ludovic Trinquart; Amélie Yavchitz; Isabelle Boutron; Philippe Ravaud
Related Documents :
22065869 - Short- and long-term outcomes of intracoronary and endogenously mobilized bone marrow s...
22459729 - Telephone-based guided self-help for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome: a non-r...
15054929 - Short stature.
18029459 - Influence of growth hormone (gh) receptor deletion of exon 3 and full-length isoforms o...
9030969 - Assessment of red blood cell indices in growth-hormone-treated children.
7676599 - Effect of chemoprophylaxis with avermectins on the immune response to gastrointestinal ...
12497559 - A three-factor analytic model of the madrs in geriatric depression.
17545909 - Outcome evaluation of surgical and nonsurgical management of lumbar disc protrusion cau...
19592229 - Impairments in balance discriminate fallers from non-fallers in copd.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Meta-Analysis     Date:  2012-02-14
Journal Detail:
Title:  BMJ (Clinical research ed.)     Volume:  344     ISSN:  1756-1833     ISO Abbreviation:  BMJ     Publication Date:  2012  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-02-15     Completed Date:  2012-05-01     Revised Date:  2013-05-22    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8900488     Medline TA:  BMJ     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  e813     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Affiliation:
INSERM U738, Paris, France.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Bias (Epidemiology)*
Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic*
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Multicenter Studies as Topic*
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Electrocatalysis Using Porous Nanostructured Materials.
Next Document:  The hepatocarcinogenic conazoles: cyproconazole, epoxiconazole, and propiconazole induce a common se...