Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 22, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Comparative rates of harms in randomized trials from more developed versus less developed countries may be different
Despina Contopoulos-Ioannidis1, Xanthippi Tseretopoulou2, Megan Ancker3
1Department of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA, 94305-5107, USA; Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, 795 El Camino Real, Ames Building, Room 2A027B, Palo Alto, CA, 94301, USA; Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), 1070 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA.
Objectives:
We set up to evaluate the relative risk of harms in trials performed in less developed vs. more developed countries.
Study Design And Setting:
Meta-epidemiologic evaluation using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We considered meta-analyses with at least one randomized clinical trial (RCT) in a less developed country and one RCT in a more developed country. We targeted severe adverse events (AEs), discontinuations due to AEs, any AE, organ system-specific AEs, individual AEs, and all discontinuations due to any reason. We estimated the relative odds ratio (ROR) of harms between more and less developed countries for each topic and the summary ROR (sROR) across topics under each category of harms.
Results:
We identified 42 systematic reviews (128 meta-analyses, 521 independent RCTs). Summary sRORs did not differ significantly from 1.00 for any harm category. Nominally significant RORs were found in only 6/128 meta-analyses. However, in 27% (35/128) of meta-analyses the ROR point estimates indicated relative differences between country settings >2-fold. Considering also ROR 95% confidence intervals, in 92% (118/128) of meta-analyses one could not exclude a 2-fold difference in both directions.
Conclusions:
We identified limited comparative evidence on harms in trials from these two country settings. Substantial differences in the risk point estimates were common; the potential for modest differences could rarely be excluded with confidence.
More Related Videos
09:33Visualizing Field Data Collection Procedures of Exposure and Biomarker Assessments for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Trial in India
Published on: December 23, 2022
04:53A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Types 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,...
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Clinical Trials: Overview