Discordance between Meta-analyses and Large-Scale Randomized, Controlled Trials: Examples from the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction

Abstract

Clinicians making treatment decisions are faced with ever-growing numbers of therapies, each supported by different types of clinical data. By bringing together large amounts of data, meta-analysis has emerged as a useful tool for generating hypotheses with which to plan definitive trials, and it has also been recommended as a basis for decision making in the absence of definitive trials. In several instances, early meta-analyses have provided evidence of efficacy that was subsequently confirmed. However, in other instances, the results of initial meta-analyses have disagreed with the results of subsequent large-scale trials. Nitrate and magnesium therapy for acute myocardial infarction are two contemporary examples of treatments about which hypothesis-generating meta-analyses and subsequent large trials have disagreed. We review the issues surrounding the interpretation of meta-analyses in these cases, and we suggest that the appropriate use of meta-analyses in clinical decision making be carefully placed in the context of a review of pathophysiologic principles and the results of basic laboratory research and individual trials.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 126 citations exist upstream.