Evidence from crossover trials: empirical evaluation and comparison against parallel arm trials
| dc.contributor.author | Lathyris, D. N. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Trikalinos, T. A. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Ioannidis, J. P. | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-11-24T19:17:23Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2015-11-24T19:17:23Z | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0300-5771 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/21771 | |
| dc.rights | Default Licence | - |
| dc.subject | *Cross-Over Studies | en |
| dc.subject | *Evaluation Studies as Topic | en |
| dc.subject | Female | en |
| dc.subject | Humans | en |
| dc.subject | Male | en |
| dc.subject | *Meta-Analysis as Topic | en |
| dc.subject | Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/*standards | en |
| dc.title | Evidence from crossover trials: empirical evaluation and comparison against parallel arm trials | en |
| heal.abstract | BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate empirically how crossover trial results are analysed in meta-analyses of randomized evidence and whether their results agree with parallel arm studies on the same questions. METHODS: We used a systematic sample of Cochrane meta-analyses including crossover trials. We evaluated the methods of analysis for crossover results and compared the concordance of the estimated effect sizes in crossover vs parallel arm trials. RESULTS: Of 334 screened reviews, 62 had crossover trials. Of those, 33 meta-analyses performed quantitative syntheses involving two-arm two-period crossover trials. There was large variability on how these trials were analysed; only one of the 33 meta-analyses stated that they used the data from both the first and second period with an appropriate paired approach. Nine meta-analyses used the first period data only and 14 gave no information at all on what they had done. Twenty-eight meta-analyses had both crossover (n = 137, sample size n = 7,162) and parallel arm (n = 132, sample size n = 11,398) trials. Effect sizes correlated well with the two types of designs (rho = 0.72). Differences on whether the summary effect had a P < 0.05 or not were common due to limited sample sizes. The summary relative odds ratio for parallel arm vs crossover designs for favourable outcomes was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.74-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Crossover designs may contribute evidence in a fifth of systematic reviews, but few meta-analyses make use of their full data. The results of crossover trials tend to agree with those of parallel arm trials, although there was a trend for more conservative treatment effect estimates in parallel arm trials. | en |
| heal.access | campus | - |
| heal.fullTextAvailability | TRUE | - |
| heal.identifier.primary | 10.1093/ije/dym001 | - |
| heal.identifier.secondary | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17301102 | - |
| heal.identifier.secondary | http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/422.full.pdf | - |
| heal.journalName | Int J Epidemiol | en |
| heal.journalType | peer-reviewed | - |
| heal.language | en | - |
| heal.publicationDate | 2007 | - |
| heal.recordProvider | Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Σχολή Επιστημών Υγείας. Τμήμα Ιατρικής | el |
| heal.type | journalArticle | - |
| heal.type.el | Άρθρο Περιοδικού | el |
| heal.type.en | Journal article | en |
Αρχεία
Φάκελος/Πακέτο αδειών
1 - 1 of 1
Φόρτωση...
- Ονομα:
- license.txt
- Μέγεθος:
- 1.74 KB
- Μορφότυπο:
- Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
- Περιγραφή: