Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials without reported adequate allocation concealment have been shown to overestimate the benefit of experimental interventions. We investigated the robustness of conclusions drawn from meta-analyses to exclusion of such trials. MATERIAL: Random sample of 38 reviews from The Cochrane Library 2003, issue 2 and 32 other reviews from PubMed accessed in 2002. Eligible reviews presented a binary effect estimate from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials as the first statistically significant result that supported a conclusion in favour of one of the interventions. METHODS: We assessed the methods sections of the trials in each included meta-analysis for adequacy of allocation concealment. We replicated each meta-analysis using the authors' methods but included only trials that had adequate allocation concealment. Conclusions were defined as not supported if our result was not statistically significant. RESULTS: Thirty-four of the 70 meta-analyses contained a mixture of trials with unclear or inadequate concealment as well as trials with adequate allocation concealment. Four meta-analyses only contained trials with adequate concealment, and 32, only trials with unclear or inadequate concealment. When only trials with adequate concealment were included, 48 of 70 conclusions (69%; 95% confidence interval: 56-79%) lost support. The loss of support mainly reflected loss of power (the total number of patients was reduced by 49%) but also a shift in the point estimate towards a less beneficial effect. CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of conclusions in favour of one of the interventions were no longer supported if only trials with adequate allocation concealment were included.

Cite this

Julie Pildal, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Jørgen Hilden, Douglas G. Altman, Peter Christian Gøtzsche (2007). Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. International Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dym087

@article{julie2007impact,
  title  = {Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials},
  author = {Pildal, Julie and Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn and Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl and Hilden, Jørgen and Altman, Douglas G. and Gøtzsche, Peter Christian},
  year   = {2007},
  journal = {International Journal of Epidemiology},
  doi    = {10.1093/ije/dym087}
}

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 470 citations exist upstream.

References

Cited by