logo BDSP

Base documentaire


Votre avis nous intéresse

Le réseau BDSP met en oeuvre un projet d'innovation et d'amélioration de ses services, dans le souci constant de proposer des contenus de qualité adaptés aux besoins des utilisateurs.

Identifier de nouvelles sources de financements est la condition nécessaire pour assurer la poursuite et la pérennité de cet outil unique qu'est la BDSP, tout en le faisant évoluer.

Pour définir un nouveau modèle économique, nous avons besoin de votre avis : merci de répondre à notre enquête (temps estimé : 5 minutes).

Participer maintenant
Participer plus tard J'ai déjà participé

  1. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses.

    Article - En anglais

    Background Few meta-analyses of randomised trials assess the quality of the studies included.

    Yet there is increasing evidence that trial quality can affect estimates of intervention efficacy.

    We investigated whether different methods of quality assessment provide different estimates of intervention efficacy evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

    Methods We randomly selected 11 meta-analyses that involved 127 RCTs on the efficacy of interventions used for circulatory and digestive diseases, mental health, and pregnancy and childbirth.

    We replicated all the meta-analyses using published data from the primary studies.

    The quality of reporting of all 127 clinical trials was assessed by means of component and scale approaches.

    To explore the effects of quality on the quantitative results, we examined the effects of different methods of incorporating quality scores (sensitivity analysis and quality weights) on the results of the meta-analyses.

    Findings The quality of trials was low.

    Masked assessments provided significantly higher scores than unmasked assessments (mean 2.74 [SD 1.10] vs 2.55 [1.20]). Low-quality trials (score<2), compared with high-quality trials (score>2), were associated with an increased estimate of benefit of 34% (ratio of odds ratios [ROR] 0.66 [95% Cl 0.52-0.83]). Trials that used inadequate allocation concealment, compared with those that used adequate methods, were also associated with an increased estimate of benefit (37% ; ROR=0.63 [0. (...)

    Mots-clés Pascal : Métaanalyse, Essai clinique, Randomisation, Evaluation performance, Homme, Echelle mesure

    Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Metaanalysis, Clinical trial, Randomization, Performance evaluation, Human, Measurement scale

    Logo du centre Notice produite par :
    Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique

    Cote : 98-0405770

    Code Inist : 002B30A11. Création : 25/01/1999.