In the era of systematic reviews, does the size of an individual trial still matter?

被引：85
作者：
Guyatt, Gordon H. [1 ]
Mills, Edward J. [1 ]
Elbourne, Diana [2 ]
机构：
[1] McMaster Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[2] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Med Stat Unit, London WC1, England
来源：
PLOS MEDICINE | 2008年 / 5卷 / 01期
关键词：
D O I：
10.1371/journal.pmed.0050004
中图分类号：
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号：
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要：
Background to the debate: 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.
引用
收藏
页码：3 / 5
页数：3
相关论文
共 12 条
  • [11] Ethical issues in stopping randomized trials early because of apparent benefit
    Mueller, Paul S.
    Montori, Victor M.
    Bassler, Dirk
    Koenig, Barbara A.
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2007, 146 (12) : 878 - 881
  • [12] Financial considerations in the conduct of multi-centre randomised controlled trials: evidence from a qualitative study
    Snowdon, Claire
    Elbourne, Diana R.
    Garcia, Jo
    Campbell, Marion K.
    Entwistle, Vikki A.
    Francis, David
    Grant, Adrian M.
    Knight, Rosemary C.
    McDonald, Alison M.
    Roberts, Ian
    [J]. TRIALS, 2006, 7 (1)
12