Abstract

Abstract A new type of research, termed meta-analysis, attempts to analyze and combine the results of previous reports. We found 86 meta-analyses of reports of randomized controlled trials in the English-language literature. We evaluated the quality of these meta-analyses, using a scoring method that considered 23 items in six major areas — study design, combinability, control of bias, statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and application of results. Only 24 meta-analyses (28 percent) addressed all six areas, 31 (36 percent) addressed five, 25 (29 percent) addressed four, 5 (6 percent) addressed three, and 1 (1 percent) addressed two. Of the 23 individual items, between 1 and 14 were addressed satisfactorily (mean ±SD, 7.7±2.7). We conclude that an urgent need exists for improved methods in literature searching, quality evaluation of trials, and synthesizing of the results. (N Engl J Med 1987; 316:450–5.)

Keywords

Randomized controlled trialMeta-analysisMedicineResearch designMEDLINEStatisticsMedical physicsSurgeryMathematicsInternal medicine

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Publication Info

Year
1987
Type
article
Volume
316
Issue
8
Pages
450-455
Citations
1259
Access
Closed

External Links

View on DOI.org

Social Impact

Altmetric
PlumX Metrics

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

1259
OpenAlex

Cite This

Henry S. Sacks, Jayne Berrier, Dinah Reitman et al. (1987). Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials. New England Journal of Medicine , 316 (8) , 450-455. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198702193160806

Identifiers

DOI
10.1056/nejm198702193160806