Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To compare estimates of intervention effects between single centre and multicentre randomised controlled trials with continuous outcomes. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 26 meta-analyses totalling 292 randomised controlled trials (177 single centre, 115 multicentre) with continuous outcomes published between January 2007 and January 2010 in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Data extraction Data were extracted on characteristics of trials, single or multicentre status, risk of bias using the risk of bias tool of the Cochrane Collaboration, and results. Data synthesis The intervention effects were estimated with standardised mean differences. For each meta-analysis, random effects meta-regression was used to estimate the difference in standardised mean differences between single centre and multicentre trials. Differences in standardised mean differences were then pooled across meta-analyses by a random-effects meta-analysis model. A combined difference in standardised mean differences of less than 0 indicated that single centre trials showed larger treatment effects, on average, than did multicentre trials. Because single centre trials may be more prone to publication bias and may have lower methodological quality than multicentre trials, sensitivity analyses were done with adjustment for sample size and domains of the risk of bias tool. Results Single centre trials showed larger intervention effects than did multicentre trials (combined difference in standardised mean differences −0.09, 95% confidence interval −0.17 to −0.01, P=0.04), with low heterogeneity across individual meta-analyses (I2=0%, between meta-analyses variance τ2=0.00). Adjustment for sample size slightly attenuated the difference (−0.08, −0.17 to 0.01). Adjustment for risk of bias yielded similar estimates with wider confidence intervals, some of them crossing 0 (−0.09, −0.17 to 0.00 for overall risk of bias). Conclusions On average, single centre clinical trials with continuous outcomes showed slightly larger intervention effects than did multicentre trials. Further research is needed to investigate potential causes of these differences.

[1]  A. Pollock,et al.  Cognitive rehabilitation for spatial neglect following stroke. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[2]  M. Prins,et al.  Ginkgo biloba for intermittent claudication. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[3]  C. Eccleston,et al.  Psychological therapies for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[4]  S. Brophy,et al.  Interventions for latent autoimmune diabetes (LADA) in adults. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[5]  Isabelle Boutron,et al.  Single-Center Trials Show Larger Treatment Effects Than Multicenter Trials: Evidence From a Meta-epidemiologic Study , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

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

[7]  Christopher G. Maher,et al.  Exercise for Osteoarthritis of the Knee , 2010, Physical Therapy.

[8]  D. Altman,et al.  Reporting on covariate adjustment in randomised controlled trials before and after revision of the 2001 CONSORT statement: a literature review , 2010, Trials.

[9]  Justin Bailey,et al.  Topical treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis. , 2010, American family physician.

[10]  D. Altman,et al.  The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiologic study. , 2009, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[11]  R. Bellomo,et al.  Why we should be wary of single-center trials , 2009, Critical care medicine.

[12]  T. Lasserson,et al.  Pressure modification for improving usage of continuous positive airway pressure machines in adults with obstructive sleep apnoea. , 2009, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[13]  L. Moja,et al.  Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in stroke patients. , 2009, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[14]  Catherine Sherrington,et al.  Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  Nancy K Latham,et al.  Progressive resistance strength training for improving physical function in older adults. , 2009, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[18]  N. D. de Wit,et al.  Psychological treatments for the management of irritable bowel syndrome. , 2009, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[19]  T. Furukawa,et al.  Psychotherapy for depression among incurable cancer patients. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[20]  E. von Elm,et al.  Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee. , 2008, Swiss medical weekly.

[21]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  D. Moher,et al.  Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. , 2008, Annals of internal medicine.

[23]  J. Hoving,et al.  Antidepressants for non-specific low back pain. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[24]  F. Cramp,et al.  Exercise for the management of cancer-related fatigue in adults. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[25]  R. Rapp,et al.  Case management for persons with substance use disorders. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[26]  P. Langhorne,et al.  Repetitive Task Training for Improving Functional Ability After Stroke , 2009, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[27]  L. Doyle,et al.  Early developmental intervention programs post hospital discharge to prevent motor and cognitive impairments in preterm infants. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[28]  L. Page,et al.  Psychotherapies for hypochondriasis. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[29]  T. Benstead,et al.  Aldose reductase inhibitors for the treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[30]  G Foster,et al.  Self-management education programmes by lay leaders for people with chronic conditions. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[31]  J. Hilden,et al.  Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. , 2007, International journal of epidemiology.

[32]  Peter C Gøtzsche,et al.  Data extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences. , 2007, JAMA.

[33]  M. Hotopf,et al.  Amitriptyline for depression. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[34]  C. Barbui,et al.  Psychological treatments versus treatment as usual for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[35]  M. Boers,et al.  Effects of glucocorticoids on radiological progression in rheumatoid arthritis. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[36]  Allergen injection immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[37]  Andrea Cipriani,et al.  Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[38]  R. Bellù,et al.  Opioids for neonates receiving mechanical ventilation. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[39]  Alessandro Liberati,et al.  Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[40]  Lesley A Stewart,et al.  Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. , 2004, International journal of epidemiology.

[41]  B. Djulbegovic,et al.  Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[42]  Isabelle Boutron,et al.  Methodological differences in clinical trials evaluating nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments of hip and knee osteoarthritis. , 2003, JAMA.

[43]  R. Thomson,et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[44]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta‐epidemiological’ research , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[45]  P. Tugwell,et al.  A Comparison of the Quality of Cochrane Reviews and Systematic Reviews Published in Paper-Based Journals , 2002, Evaluation & the health professions.

[46]  T. Wilt,et al.  Serenoa repens for benign prostatic hyperplasia. , 2000, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[47]  D. Cook,et al.  Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? , 1998, The Lancet.

[48]  George Davey Smith,et al.  meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies , 1998 .

[49]  M. Egger,et al.  Bias in location and selection of studies. , 1998, BMJ.

[50]  R. Simes,et al.  Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects , 1997, BMJ.

[51]  R. J. Hayes,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. , 1995, JAMA.

[52]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Publication Bias: The Problem That Won't Go Away , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[53]  Thomas A. Louis,et al.  An Assessment of Publication Bias Using a Sample of Published Clinical Trials , 1989 .