Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 18, 2026
Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements
Published on: September 7, 2019
The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis
1Clinical Epidemiology Study Group, Institute for Medical Education, University of Berne, Switzerland.
Context:
Although it is widely recommended that clinical trials undergo some type of quality review, the number and variety of quality assessment scales that exist make it unclear how to achieve the best assessment.
Objective:
To determine whether the type of quality assessment scale used affects the conclusions of meta-analytic studies.
Design And Setting:
Meta-analysis of 17 trials comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with standard heparin for prevention of postoperative thrombosis using 25 different scales to identify high-quality trials. The association between treatment effect and summary scores and the association with 3 key domains (concealment of treatment allocation, blinding of outcome assessment, and handling of withdrawals) were examined in regression models.
Main Outcome Measure:
Pooled relative risks of deep vein thrombosis with LMWH vs standard heparin in high-quality vs low-quality trials as determined by 25 quality scales.
Results:
Pooled relative risks from high-quality trials ranged from 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.90) to 0.90 (95% CI, 0.67-1.21) vs 0.52 (95% CI, 0.24-1.09) to 1.13 (95% CI, 0.70-1.82) for low-quality trials. For 6 scales, relative risks of high-quality trials were close to unity, indicating that LMWH was not significantly superior to standard heparin, whereas low-quality trials showed better protection with LMWH (P<.05). Seven scales showed the opposite: high quality trials showed an effect whereas low quality trials did not. For the remaining 12 scales, effect estimates were similar in the 2 quality strata. In regression analysis, summary quality scores were not significantly associated with treatment effects. There was no significant association of treatment effects with allocation concealment and handling of withdrawals. Open outcome assessment, however, influenced effect size with the effect of LMWH, on average, being exaggerated by 35% (95% CI, 1%-57%; P= .046).
Conclusions:
Our data indicate that the use of summary scores to identify trials of high quality is problematic. Relevant methodological aspects should be assessed individually and their influence on effect sizes explored.
More Related Videos
06:53Preparation of Food Samples Using Homogenization and Microwave-Assisted Wet Acid Digestion for Multi-Element Determination with ICP-MS
Published on: December 22, 2023
09:51TD-DFT Guided Advanced E-Eye Sensing Technique for On-site Quantification of Fe, Cr, F, and As in the Environmental, Biological, and Food Samples
Published on: September 19, 2025
Related Concept Videos
01:18Effects of EDTA on End-Point Detection Methods
In the visual method, metal-ion indicators (metallochromic dyes), which have distinct colors in their free and complex forms, are added to the mixture to signal the titration's end point. They form stable complexes with metal ions, but these complexes are weaker than the corresponding metal–EDTA complexes. As a result, EDTA...
01:15Data Validation
Key parameters for method validation include:
01:16Contaminants and Errors
Another key consideration is determining the appropriate number of samples required to...
01:21Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy: Lab
Solutions containing organic solvents, such as low-molecular-mass alcohols, esters, or ketones, enhance absorbances by increasing nebulizer...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
01:23Toxicity Testing in Animals