4.6 Editorial Material

Metaanalysis vs large clinical trials: which should guide our management?

Journal

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.09.873

Keywords

metaanalysis; randomized clinical trial

Funding

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z01 HD002535-09] Funding Source: Medline
  2. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [Z01HD002535, ZIAHD008782, ZIAHD002535] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Large, randomized clinical trials have long been considered the gold standard to guide clinical care. Metaanalysis is a type of analysis in which results of a number of randomized clinical trials are combined and a summary measure of effect for a given treatment is ascertained. The clinician in practice often is faced with a dilemma regarding the type of evidence that should be used to guide clinical practice; for many clinical problems, there are both randomized controlled trials and metaanalyses available. The cases of calcium and aspirin therapy for the prevention of preeclampsia afford an opportunity to explore the benefits and limitations of each type of study to guide clinical practice. We conclude that, when available, large randomized clinical trials should be used to guide clinical practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available