Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials
Open Access
- 21 August 1997
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Massachusetts Medical Society in New England Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 337 (8), 536-542
- https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199708213370806
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit:
- Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trialsThe Lancet, 1995
- The practice of meta-analysisJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- “Large-scale randomized evidence: Large, simple trials and overviews of trials”: Discussion. A clinician's perspective on meta-analysesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- Meta-analysis: Statistical alchemy for the 21st centuryJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- By how much and how quickly does reduction in serum cholesterol concentration lower risk of ischaemic heart disease?BMJ, 1994
- Randomised trial of late thrombolysis in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarctionThe Lancet, 1993
- Intravenous magnesium sulphate in suspected acute myocardial infarction: results of the second Leicester Intravenous Magnesium Intervention Trial (LIMIT-2)The Lancet, 1992
- Effects of intravenous magnesium in suspected acute myocardial infarction: overview of randomised trials.BMJ, 1991
- Meta-analysis: Science or religion?Controlled Clinical Trials, 1989
- Intravenous and intracoronary fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: Overview of results on mortality, reinfarction and side-effects from 33 randomized controlled trialsEuropean Heart Journal, 1985