False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review
- PMID: 27519923
- PMCID: PMC4985805
- DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011890
False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review
Abstract
Objective: Many published meta-analyses are underpowered. We explored the role of trial sequential analysis (TSA) in assessing the reliability of conclusions in underpowered meta-analyses.
Methods: We screened The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and selected 100 meta-analyses with a binary outcome, a negative result and sufficient power. We defined a negative result as one where the 95% CI for the effect included 1.00, a positive result as one where the 95% CI did not include 1.00, and sufficient power as the required information size for 80% power, 5% type 1 error, relative risk reduction of 10% or number needed to treat of 100, and control event proportion and heterogeneity taken from the included studies. We re-conducted the meta-analyses, using conventional cumulative techniques, to measure how many false positives would have occurred if these meta-analyses had been updated after each new trial. For each false positive, we performed TSA, using three different approaches.
Results: We screened 4736 systematic reviews to find 100 meta-analyses that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Using conventional cumulative meta-analysis, false positives were present in seven of the meta-analyses (7%, 95% CI 3% to 14%), occurring more than once in three. The total number of false positives was 14 and TSA prevented 13 of these (93%, 95% CI 68% to 98%). In a post hoc analysis, we found that Cochrane meta-analyses that are negative are 1.67 times more likely to be updated (95% CI 0.92 to 2.68) than those that are positive.
Conclusions: We found false positives in 7% (95% CI 3% to 14%) of the included meta-analyses. Owing to limitations of external validity and to the decreased likelihood of updating positive meta-analyses, the true proportion of false positives in meta-analysis is probably higher. TSA prevented 93% of the false positives (95% CI 68% to 98%).
Keywords: EPIDEMIOLOGY; PUBLIC HEALTH; STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS.
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Figures
Similar articles
-
Apparently conclusive meta-analyses on interventions in critical care may be inconclusive-a meta-epidemiological study.J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;114:1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.011. Epub 2019 Jun 11. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019. PMID: 31200004 Review.
-
Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses.J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Aug;61(8):763-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.007. Epub 2008 Apr 14. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008. PMID: 18411040
-
Systematic Reviews of Anesthesiologic Interventions Reported as Statistically Significant: Problems with Power, Precision, and Type 1 Error Protection.Anesth Analg. 2015 Dec;121(6):1611-22. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000892. Anesth Analg. 2015. PMID: 26579662 Review.
-
Random error in cardiovascular meta-analyses: how common are false positive and false negative results?Int J Cardiol. 2013 Sep 30;168(2):1102-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.11.048. Epub 2012 Dec 4. Int J Cardiol. 2013. PMID: 23218569 Review.
-
Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses?Int J Epidemiol. 2009 Feb;38(1):276-86. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyn179. Epub 2008 Sep 29. Int J Epidemiol. 2009. PMID: 18824467
Cited by
-
Deep brain stimulation for neurological disorders: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomised clinical trials.Syst Rev. 2022 Oct 13;11(1):218. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-02095-z. Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36229825 Free PMC article.
-
Schema therapy versus treatment as usual for outpatients with difficult-to-treat depression: study protocol for a parallel group randomized clinical trial (DEPRE-ST).Trials. 2024 Apr 16;25(1):266. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08079-9. Trials. 2024. PMID: 38627837 Free PMC article.
-
Stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no prophylaxis in adult hospitalised acutely ill patients-protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 24;6(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0509-4. Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28646925 Free PMC article.
-
Major mistakes or errors in the use of trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews or meta-analyses - the METSA systematic review.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Sep 9;24(1):196. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02318-y. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024. PMID: 39251912 Free PMC article.
-
Parent-mediated interventions versus usual care in children with autism spectrum disorders: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.PLoS One. 2025 May 16;20(5):e0323798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323798. eCollection 2025. PLoS One. 2025. PMID: 40378107 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials