Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. II: Replicate variability and comparison of studies that agree and disagree

Stat Med. 1987 Oct-Nov;6(7):733-44. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780060704.


The replicate variability of meta-analyses of controlled clinical trials has been assessed as a measure of scientific precision. 46 of 91 known meta-analysis papers were divided into 20 cohorts of studies of the same therapies. Ten cohorts contained meta-analyses with different statistical conclusions; 14 contained differing clinical conclusions with a wider spread than the statistically differing studies. Possible causes of variability, such as different trials included, different policies regarding the inclusion of non-randomized and unpublished trials, and different statistical methodologies, were not obvious causes of differing conclusions. Further work in this area should include multivariate analyses in order to explore possible interactions in the factors accounting for the variability found in replicate meta-analyses.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

MeSH terms

  • Clinical Trials as Topic*
  • Data Interpretation, Statistical*
  • Humans