PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11914310

Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues.

Diana R Elbourne·Douglas G Altman·Julian P T Higgins·Francois Curtin·Helen V Worthington·Andy Vail
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is usually based on trials where patients are randomized individually into two different, parallel, treatment groups. This paper concentrates on RCTs of a different design-two-period, two-treatment cross-over trials. METHODS: The characteristics of these trials are outlined, with detailed examples of methods for analysis for both continuous and binary data. These case studies are then extended into the context of a meta-analysis. The Cochrane Library was surveyed to assess current practice for synthesis. RESULTS: Methods are described for continuous and binary data for use both when the necessary paired data are given and also when they need to be calculated or imputed, and some suggestions are provided to help people wishing to synthesize data from cross-over trials into meta-analyses. The survey suggested that about 8% of the trials in the Cochrane library were cross-over trials and 18% of the reviews referred to such trials, although there was no consistent approach to their inclusion into the reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Methods do exist for including valuable information from two-period, two-treatment cross-over trials into quantitative reviews. However, poor reporting of cross-over trials will often impede attempts to perform a meta-analysis using the available methods.

Explore related subjects

Cross-Over StudiesHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReview Literature as TopicJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Diana R Elbourne, Douglas G Altman, Julian P T Higgins, Francois Curtin, Helen V Worthington, Andy Vail. 2002. Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije%2F31.1.140

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Sildenafil affects olfactory function.

PURPOSE: Sildenafil is the first member of a new class of oral drugs effective for erectile dysfunction. However, approximately 20% of patients complain about nasal congestion after sildenafil administration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Because nasal airflow and olfaction are closely linked, the sense of smell was evaluated in 20 young, healthy volunteers after the administration of 50 and 100 mg sildenafil, and placebo in a double-blinded, crossover study. Olfactory function was evaluated using a standardized and validated test (Sniffin' Sticks). To investigate a possible impact of G-protein beta3 subunit C825T polymorphism on the effect of sildenafil on olfaction the genotype of all subjects was determined. RESULTS: The effect of sildenafil on olfaction was only present at a dose of 100 mg but not at a dose of 50 mg sildenafil. The genotypes TT, CC and TC of the G-protein beta3 C825T polymorphism had no impact on the change in olfactory function. CONCLUSIONS: Higher sildenafil doses may produce decreased olfactory sensitivity.

Cross-Over Studies↗
PubMed2006

[The N-of-1 trial: the ideal study design that is underused].

The randomised experiment in a single patient, the N-of-1 trial, is the best study design for demonstrating causality, for example between agent and effect. Despite this, this type of study is only encountered sporadically in medical journals. One reason for this is that even this type of design cannot definitively demonstrate causality, because different points in time are compared with one another. Moreover, the design is rather inefficient, since the results correspond with those from observation without randomisation, placebo control or blinding. Even so, the N-of-1 trial is the ultimate form of verification in, for example, the individualisation of treatment. For this reason, this form of study might be used more often.

Cross-Over Studies↗
PubMed2006

[Restless legs due to ingestion of 'light' beverages containing saccharine; results of an N-of-1 trial].

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there was a connection between the complaint of restless legs and the ingestion of artificial sweeteners in a patient with these symptoms after drinking certain 'light' beverages. DESIGN: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled N-of-1 trial with a cross-over design. METHOD: During a period of 48 days, the patient took 4 capsules per day containing either 150 mg of cyclamate, 22.5 mg of saccharine, both sweeteners, or placebo on two successive days. Between each of these 2-day periods there was a 2-day rest period during which no capsules were taken. The hospital pharmacist had prepared the capsules and determined the sequence of the 2-day periods on a random basis. The patient did not know which capsules he was taking. Every day on arising, starting 3 weeks before the trial period, the patient noted the intensity and duration of the symptoms in the late evening and previous night. For this notation he used an 11-point scale, from 0 (= no restless legs) to 10 (= almost total inability to sleep because of restless legs). RESULTS: A score of 1-3 corresponded to mild symptoms that had no effect on the patient's sleep; at a score of 4-6 his sleep was disturbed and at a score of 7-10 the patient hardly slept at all. The patient had symptoms more often while using saccharine or the combination of saccharine and cyclamate than when taking the placebo (4 and 4 versus 2 ofthe 6 nights); moreover, the average score was then statistically significantly higher (5.2 and 5.8 versus 3.3). CONCLUSION: There was a connection between the patient's complaints of restless legs and the use of saccharine, but not the use of cyclamate.

Cross-Over Studies↗