PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9262498

Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials.

J LeLorier·G Grégoire·A Benhaddad·J Lapierre·F Derderian
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses are now widely used to provide evidence to support clinical strategies. However, large randomized, controlled trials are considered the gold standard in evaluating the efficacy of clinical interventions. METHODS: We compared the results of large randomized, controlled trials (involving 1000 patients or more) that were published in four journals (the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association) with the results of meta-analyses published earlier on the same topics. Regarding the principal and secondary outcomes, we judged whether the findings of the randomized trials agreed with those of the corresponding meta-analyses, and we determined whether the study results were positive (indicating that treatment improved the outcome) or negative (indicating that the outcome with treatment was the same or worse than without it) at the conventional level of statistical significance (P<0.05). RESULTS: We identified 12 large randomized, controlled trials and 19 meta-analyses addressing the same questions. For a total of 40 primary and secondary outcomes, agreement between the meta-analyses and the large clinical trials was only fair (kappa= 0.35; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.64). The positive predictive value of the meta-analyses was 68 percent, and the negative predictive value 67 percent. However, the difference in point estimates between the randomized trials and the meta-analyses was statistically significant for only 5 of the 40 comparisons (12 percent). Furthermore, in each case of disagreement a statistically significant effect of treatment was found by one method, whereas no statistically significant effect was found by the other. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the 12 large randomized, controlled trials that we studied were not predicted accurately 35 percent of the time by the meta-analyses published previously on the same topics.

Explore related subjects

HumansMeta-Analysis as TopicOdds RatioPredictive Value of TestsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSensitivity and SpecificityComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J LeLorier, G Grégoire, A Benhaddad, J Lapierre, F Derderian. 1997-08-21. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials.. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199708213370806

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2027

Global Genomic Surveillance.

Global genomic surveillance has emerged as a foundational pillar of public health in the twenty-first century, enabling real-time tracking of pathogen evolution and informing outbreak response. This chapter examines the strategic architecture of global genomic surveillance, focusing on its application to arboviruses such as chikungunya virus (CHIKV). It explores the integration of genomic data with epidemiological, clinical, and environmental information within a One Health framework, while addressing critical challenges in governance, equity, and interoperability. The discussion covers the entire genomic surveillance workflow, from sample collection and sequencing to bioinformatic analysis and phylogenetic inference, and highlights the transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI) in predictive surveillance. By analyzing global initiatives, operational barriers, and emerging technologies, this chapter underscores the necessity of sustainable, equitable, and interoperable genomic systems to proactively address current and future infectious disease threats.

Humans↗
PubMed2027

Systematic Dissection of Key Driver Perturbation Signatures in Single Cells via ECCITE-seq.

CRISPR screens, such as expanded CRISPR-compatible cellular indexing of transcriptomes and epitopes by sequencing (ECCITE-seq), enable the simultaneous measurement of transcriptomes, gRNA identity, and cell-surface protein expression at single-cell resolution to systematically interrogate gene function. This platform provides a powerful and scalable experimental approach for validating disease-associated regulators identified by large-scale association studies and other computational methods, including network-based analyses of multi-omics data. Here, as an example application, we describe an ECCITE-seq framework to characterize the transcriptomic consequences of perturbing multiple neuronal key driver genes associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in human-induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC)-derived neurons. More broadly, by integrating customized pooled gRNA libraries with different CRISPR effectors across multiple cell types, this approach allows for the assessment of the regulatory impact of candidate genes implicated in development and disease processes.

Humans↗
PubMed2027

Identification of Genome-Wide Chromatin Structural Aberration in Cancer by Hi-C Analysis.

Aberrant three-dimensional genome organization is a hallmark of cancer, often driving oncogene activation through mechanisms such as enhancer hijacking. High-throughput chromosome conformation capture (Hi-C) maps these interactions on a genome-wide scale. Unlike earlier dilution-based methods, in situ Hi-C performs proximity ligation within intact nuclei, minimizing random ligation noise and enabling fine-scale structure detection. This chapter describes an optimized in situ Hi-C protocol tailored for cancer cell lines using MboI digestion and biotin-mediated pull-down to generate high-complexity libraries. We further outline a computational workflow that extends beyond standard topological mapping of compartments and topologically associating domains to identify cancer-specific aberrations. Specifically, we focus on detecting chromosomal rearrangements (structural variants) and characterizing the distinct circular topology of extrachromosomal DNA. This integrated experimental and analytical framework provides the necessary tools to dissect the spatial dysregulation underlying tumor evolution.

Humans↗