Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
The bigger, the better? When multicenter clinical trials and meta-analyses do not work
26
Zitationen
2
Autoren
2020
Jahr
Abstract
Courtesy of the development of the Internet, bursts of information technology, and globalization, huge multicenter studies along with meta-analyses have been introduced to the medical sciences society. Meta-analyses and multicenter studies revolutionized modern medicine and drug development, and empowered evidence based medicine by providing extremely high levels of evidence. Nevertheless, there are occasions that while results of local multi/single center studies showed efficacy of a new treatment, larger multicenter studies or meta-analyses failed to show efficacy, and vice versa. Generally, bigger studies are more powerful and we rely on their results in clinical decision making. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind that in certain circumstances, single center studies are of great importance, and are preferred to multicenter studies and meta-analyses. In order to have a better understanding of why and when multicenter studies along with meta-analyses might not be the best options, we have discussed three different scenarios.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
2021 · 90.290 Zit.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
2009 · 83.068 Zit.
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
1977 · 77.957 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 63.529 Zit.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
2003 · 62.162 Zit.