In the era of systematic reviews, does the size of an individual trial still matter
- PMID: 18177203
- PMCID: PMC2174963
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050004
In the era of systematic reviews, does the size of an individual trial still matter
Abstract
Systematic reviews that combine high-quality evidence from several trials are now widely considered to be at the top of the hierarchy of clinical evidence. Given the primacy of systematic reviews-and the fact that individual clinical trials rarely provide definitive answers to a clinical research question-some commentators question whether the sample size calculation for an individual trial still matters. Others point out that small trials can still be potentially misleading.
Conflict of interest statement
References
-
- A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). CAPRIE Steering Committee. Lancet. 1996;348:1329–1339. [No authors listed] - PubMed
-
- Furukawa TA, Streiner DL, Hori S. Discrepancies among megatrials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:1193–1199. - PubMed
-
- Clarke M, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents. JAMA. 1998;280:280–282. - PubMed
-
- Halpern SD, Karlawish JH, Berlin JA. The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA. 2002;288:358–362. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical