Titre :
|
Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. (2007)
|
Auteurs :
|
J. PILDAL ;
ALTMAN (D.G.) : GBR. Centre for Statistics in Medicine. Oxford. ;
P.C. GETZSCHE ;
HILDEN (J.) : DNK. Department of Biostatistics. University of Copenhagen. ;
A. HROBJARTSSON ;
K.J. JORGENSEN ;
Nordic Cochrane Centre. Rigshospitalet. DNK
|
Type de document :
|
Article
|
Dans :
|
International journal of epidemiology (vol. 36, n° 4, 2007)
|
Pagination :
|
847-857
|
Langues:
|
Anglais
|
Mots-clés :
|
Epidémiologie
;
Essai double aveugle
;
Homme
|
Résumé :
|
[BDSP. Notice produite par INIST-CNRS R0x2o5hi. Diffusion soumise à autorisation]. Background Randomized trials without reported adequate allocation concealment have been shown to overestimate the benefit of experimental interventions. We investigated the robustness of conclusions drawn from meta-analyses to exclusion of such trials. Material Random sample of 38 reviews from The Cochrane Library 2003, issue 2 and 32 other reviews from PubMed accessed in 2002. Eligible reviews presented a binary effect estimate from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials as the first statistically significant result that supported a conclusion in favour of one of the interventions. Methods We assessed the methods sections of the trials in each included meta-analysis for adequacy of allocation concealment. We replicated each meta-analysis using the authors'methods but included only trials that had adequate allocation concealment. Conclusions were defined as not supported if our result was not statistically significant. Results Thirty-four of the 70 meta-analyses contained a mixture of trials with unclear or inadequate concealment as well as trials with adequate allocation concealment. Four meta-analyses only contained trials with adequate concealment, and 32, only trials with unclear or inadequate concealment. When only trials with adequate concealment were included, 48 of 70 conclusions (69% ; 95% confidence interval : 56-79%) lost support. The loss of support mainly reflected loss of power (the total number of patients was reduced by 49%) but also a shift in the point estimate towards a less beneficial effect. Conclusion Two-thirds of conclusions in favour of one of the interventions were no longer supported if only trials with adequate allocation concealment were included.
|