Article2005

Comparison of Large Versus Smaller Randomized Trials for Mental Health-Related Interventions

Despina G. Contopoulos‐Ioannidis · Simon M. Gilbody · Thomas A Trikalinos · Rachel C. Churchill · Kristian Wahlbeck · John P. A. Ioannidis

38 citations0/0 files storedAmerican Journal of Psychiatry

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The extent of disagreement between large and smaller randomized, controlled trials on mental health issues is unknown. The authors aimed to compare the results of large versus smaller trials on mental health-related interventions. METHOD: The authors screened 161 Cochrane and 254 Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness systematic reviews on mental health-related interventions. They identified 16 meta-analyses with at least one "large" randomized trial with sample size >800 and at least one "smaller" trial. Effect sizes were calculated separately for large and smaller trials. Heterogeneity was assessed between all studies, within each group (large and smaller studies), and between large and smaller studies. RESULTS: Significant between-study heterogeneity was seen in five meta-analyses. By random-effects calculations, the results of large and smaller trials differed beyond chance in four meta-analyses (25%). In three of these disagreements (effect of day care on IQ, discontinuation of antidepressants, risperidone versus typical antipsychotics for schizophrenia), the smaller trials showed greater effect sizes than the large trials. The inverse was seen in one case (olanzapine versus typical antipsychotics for schizophrenia). With fixed-effects models, disagreements beyond chance occurred in five cases (31%). In four meta-analyses, the effect size differed over twofold between large and smaller trials. Various quality and design parameters were identified as potential explanations for some disagreements. CONCLUSIONS: Large trials are uncommon in mental health. Their results are usually comparable with the results of smaller studies, but major disagreements do occur. Both large and smaller trials should be scrutinized as they offer a continuum of randomized evidence.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 38 citations exist upstream.

References

1986Meta-analysis in clinical trials 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials 2001The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration 2001Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials 1991Publication bias in clinical research 1997Quantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews 1997Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials 2002Screening for Depression in Adults: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Cited by

2023The impact of blinding on trial results: A systematic review and meta‐analysis 2007Bias in Meta-Analytic Estimates of the Absolute Efficacy of Psychotherapy 2016Umbrella Reviews, Overviews of Reviews, and Meta-epidemiologic Studies: Similarities and Differences 2010Development of a combined database for meta‐epidemiological research 2017Fact or fiction: reducing the proportion and impact of false positives

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.