The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews

Background Most meta-analyses include data from one or more small studies that, individually, do not have power to detect an intervention effect. The relative influence of adequately powered and underpowered studies in published meta-analyses has not previously been explored. We examine the distribution of power available in studies within meta-analyses published in Cochrane reviews, and investigate the impact of underpowered studies on meta-analysis results. Methods and Findings For 14,886 meta-analyses of binary outcomes from 1,991 Cochrane reviews, we calculated power per study within each meta-analysis. We defined adequate power as ≥50% power to detect a 30% relative risk reduction. In a subset of 1,107 meta-analyses including 5 or more studies with at least two adequately powered and at least one underpowered, results were compared with and without underpowered studies. In 10,492 (70%) of 14,886 meta-analyses, all included studies were underpowered; only 2,588 (17%) included at least two adequately powered studies. 34% of the meta-analyses themselves were adequately powered. The median of summary relative risks was 0.75 across all meta-analyses (inter-quartile range 0.55 to 0.89). In the subset examined, odds ratios in underpowered studies were 15% lower (95% CI 11% to 18%, P<0.0001) than in adequately powered studies, in meta-analyses of controlled pharmacological trials; and 12% lower (95% CI 7% to 17%, P<0.0001) in meta-analyses of controlled non-pharmacological trials. The standard error of the intervention effect increased by a median of 11% (inter-quartile range −1% to 35%) when underpowered studies were omitted; and between-study heterogeneity tended to decrease. Conclusions When at least two adequately powered studies are available in meta-analyses reported by Cochrane reviews, underpowered studies often contribute little information, and could be left out if a rapid review of the evidence is required. However, underpowered studies made up the entirety of the evidence in most Cochrane reviews.

[1]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[2]  Gerta Rücker,et al.  Detecting and adjusting for small‐study effects in meta‐analysis , 2011, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[3]  K. Thorlund,et al.  Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  M. Farrell,et al.  Meta-analysis of drug-related deaths soon after release from prison , 2010, Addiction.

[5]  Kristian Thorlund,et al.  The Number of Patients and Events Required to Limit the Risk of Overestimation of Intervention Effects in Meta-Analysis—A Simulation Study , 2011, PloS one.

[6]  K. Thorlund,et al.  Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  L. Hedges,et al.  The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. , 2001, Psychological methods.

[8]  J. Sterne,et al.  Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  Philippe Ravaud,et al.  Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  J. Karlawish,et al.  The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. , 2002, JAMA.

[11]  D G Altman,et al.  The scandal of poor medical research , 1994, BMJ.

[12]  David J Spiegelhalter,et al.  Bias modelling in evidence synthesis , 2009, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A,.

[13]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  In the Era of Systematic Reviews, Does the Size of an Individual Trial Still Matter? , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[14]  David Braunholtz,et al.  Why “underpowered” trials are not necessarily unethical , 1997, The Lancet.

[15]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  Santiago G. Moreno,et al.  Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study , 2009, BMC medical research methodology.

[17]  Christian Gluud,et al.  Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[18]  George F Borm,et al.  The evidence provided by a single trial is less reliable than its statistical analysis suggests. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  Helena C. Kraemer,et al.  Advantages of excluding underpowered studies in meta-analysis: Inclusionist versus exclusionist viewpoints. , 1998 .

[20]  Rebecca M Turner,et al.  Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis , 2011, BMC medical research methodology.

[21]  R. Steele,et al.  Mega-trials vs. meta-analysis: precision vs. heterogeneity? , 2007, Contemporary clinical trials.

[22]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  Hristos Doucouliagos,et al.  Could It Be Better to Discard 90% of the Data? A Statistical Paradox , 2010 .

[24]  S. Vollset,et al.  Total plasma homocysteine and cardiovascular risk profile. The Hordaland Homocysteine Study. , 1995, JAMA.

[25]  David Hailey,et al.  Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment , 2008, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.