Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses

By L. Kjaergard, J. Villumsen, C. Gluud. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2001

2,064 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Molecular Biology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/81d9a496c5c0e3d9fbed19e1d60dd5e70c87cdf6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Molecular Biology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2008, background): “Other types of bias that may affect the results of randomised controlled trials include bias due to selective reporting of outcomes18 19 and bias due to Overall (102) All cause mortality (23) Other outcomes (79) Objective outcomes (62) Subjective outcomes (40) Drug intervention (65) Other…”
The Relationship Between Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes in Systematic Reviews in Education (2009, background): “Kjaergard, Villumsen, and Gluud (2001) note that in medical research, small studies tend to be of lower methodological quality, as they are often pilot studies with poor measurement, poor controls for selection bias, or other flaws.”
The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews (2013, background): “Alternatively, small-study effects may arise from biases caused by methodological flaws arising more frequently in small studies [3], or may be due to true differences in the underlying effects between smaller and larger studies.”
Effects of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs on Patient-controlled Analgesia Morphine Side Effects: Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2005, background): “, studies with less than 1,000 patients, with inadequate allocation sequence generation or no double blinding can exaggerate the benefit of the treatment in comparison with large trials and contribute to discrepancies.(45) Therefore, multiple scales have been proposed to assess the quality of trials”
When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects (2019, background): “Additionally, small studies tend to be of lesser methodological quality, leading to greater variability from studies with smaller sample sizes, which could introduce a higher probability of positive effect sizes (Kjaergard et al., 2001).”
Effect of anti-inflammatory treatment on depression, depressive symptoms, and adverse effects: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. (2014, methodology): “Akhondzadeh et al,26 2009 Peer reviewed 40 37 15 (38)/24-46 None Not measured Not measured DSM-IV, HAM-D17 ≥18 6 wk of SSRI with placebo (20) vs SSRI with celecoxib, 200 mg, twice daily (20)”
Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials (2012, neutral): “Schulz et al, 1995 (4) 33 metaanalyses (250 trials) Kjaergard et al, 2001 (8) 14 metaanalyses (190 trials) Egger et al, 2003 (2) 122 metaanalyses (1175 trials) Balk et al, 2004 (6) 26 metaanalyses (276 trials) Als-Nielsen et al, 2004 (5); Siersma et al, 2007 (11) 48 metaanalyses (523…”