Agreement between mega-trials and smaller trials: a meta-research study

Lum Kastrati, Hamidreza Raeisi-Dehkordi, Erand Llanaj, Hugo G. Quezada-Pinedo, Farnaz Khatami, Noushin Sadat Ahanchi, Adea Llane, Renald Meçani, Taulant Muka, John P.A. Ioannidis
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.09.24307122

ABSTRACT

Importance Mega-trials can provide large-scale evidence on important questions.

Objective To explore how the results of mega-trails compare to the meta-analysis results of trials with smaller sample sizes.

Data Sources Clinicaltrials.gov was searched for mega-trials until 10.01.2023. PubMed was searched until June 2023 for meta-analyses incorporating the results of the eligible mega-trials.

Study Selection Mega-trials were eligible if they were non-cluster non-vaccine randomized control trials (RCTs); had a sample size over 10,000; and had a peer-reviewed meta-analysis publication presenting results for the primary outcome of the mega-trials and/or all-cause mortality.

Data Extraction and Synthesis For each selected meta-analysis, we extracted results of smaller trials and mega-trials included in the summary effect estimate, and combined them separately using random effects. These estimates were used to calculate the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) between mega-trials and smaller trials in each meta-analysis. Next, the ROR were combined using random-effects. Risk of bias was extracted for each trial included in our analyses (or when not available, assessed only for mega-trials).

Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes were the summary ROR for the primary outcome and all-cause mortality between mega-trials and smaller trials. Sensitivity analyses were performed with respect to the time of publishing, masking, weight, type of intervention, and specialty.

Results Of 120 mega-trials identified, 39 (33%) had significant benefits for the primary outcome and 18 (15%) had significant benefits for all-cause mortality for the intervention. In 35 comparisons of primary outcomes (including 85 point estimates from 69 unique mega-trials and 272 point estimatesfrom smaller trials) and 26 comparisons of all-cause mortality (including 70 point estimates from 65 unique mega-trials and 267 point estimates from smaller trials), ROR was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.04) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.04), respectively. For the primary outcomes, smaller trials published before the mega-trials had more favorable results than the mega-trials (ROR 1.05, 95% CI, 1.01-1.10), and than the subsequent smaller trials (ROR 0.91, 95% CI, 0.85-0.96).

Conclusions and Relevance Meta-analyses of smaller studies show in general comparable results with mega-trials, but smaller trials published before the mega-trials give more favorable results than the mega-trials.

INTRODUCTION

Most randomized comparisons of interventions in medicine use small to modest sample sizes. The need to conduct more “mega-trials” (also called large simple trials) with over 10,000 participants has been long proposed [1, 2]. Mega-trials have been rare in the past, but there has been a renewed interest recently. Several mega-trials have found that certain interventions, like vitamin D supplementation, may not be as effective as previously thought [3, 4]. Conversely, some other mega-trials, such as the ISIS-2 trial on streptokinase and aspirin after myocardial infarction [5] have found favorable results with a major impact on clinical practice. The conduct of mega-trials may be facilitated by the growth of interest in pragmatic research [6, 7], new platforms that facilitate the recruitment of participants [8], and the wide recognition of the limitations of small trials. Therefore, it is important to understand and compare the results of mega-trials to those of smaller trials on the same topic.

Meta-analyses rarely include large trials and small trials have traditionally been considered more susceptible to biases, including more prominent selective reporting biases [9, 10]. Previous literature comparing results of meta-analyses of small trials with subsequent large trials has shown considerable variation in the extent of agreement or disagreement [11-14]. Several factors may contribute to this variation, including different methods used to define agreement, different event rates in the control group of the considered trials (baseline risk), differences in trial quality, and variable susceptibility to bias of the health outcomes under investigation [11]. In previous work, there was also no clear consensus on what constitutes a "large trial". Some [15] have considered the amount of evidence in each trial (inverse of variance or sample size) as a continuum, some have tried to separate trials that have sufficient (e.g., 80%) power to detect plausible effects [16], and some have used arbitrary sample size thresholds to separate large trials, e.g. 1,000 participants [12, 14]. There has been no comprehensive empirical examination that systematically compares the results of mega-trials with sample sizes exceeding 10,000 participants to those of smaller trials.

Here, we aimed to systematically identify such completed registered mega-trials. We then determined whether and which of these mega-trials have been included in meta-analyses for their primary outcomes and/or for mortality outcomes, compared the results of these mega-trials against the combined results of smaller trials, and tried to identify potential factors associated with discrepancies.

METHODS

Design and elligibility criteria for mega-trials

This was a meta-research project and the original protocol was registered in OSF (https://osf.io/trsd7). We analysed meta-analyses of clinical trials that have included the mega-trial results in their analysis for calculations of a summary effect for the primary endpoint of the mega-trial. Additionally, we considered data on all-cause mortality as a secondary outcome since it is the most severe and objective outcome.

Mega-trials were considered for analysis if they were non-cluster non-vaccine randomized controlled trials regardless of masking and degree of their design; had sample size exceeding 10,000 participants; and had a peer-reviewed publication presenting the results of the primary endpoint included in a meta-analysis. We excluded cluster trials because the effective sample size is much smaller than the number of participants. We excluded vaccine trials since very large vaccine trials usually have different considerations (e.g., targeting large populations rather than specific sets/types of patients/diseases) and types of outcomes (e.g., often surrogate outcomes of immune response rather than hard clinical outcomes) than mega-trials of other interventions.

For a meta-analysis to be included in the analysis, it had to have a systematic review design and include the results of the mega-trial for the primary outcome along with any number of other trials in obtaining summary effect estimates with the effect size and variance data available (or possible to calculate) for each trial from presented information.

Search strategy

We performed a search in clinicaltrials.gov for registered completed randomized controlled trials that were characterized as phase 3 or 4 and not have the status of recruitment as “Not yet recruiting” or “Recruiting”. After identifying the clinical trials that fulfilled our eligibility criteria, we searched the first primary publication for these trials that included any primary outcome(s) registered in clinicaltrials.gov. If no primary publication was registered in clinicaltrials.gov, we searched PubMed using the mega-trial name and/or registration number.

Next, in PubMed, we used the option “cited by” and selected further the option “meta-analysis” to identify meta-analyses that had cited the papers of interest. If more than one meta-analysis was identified, we screened them starting with the most recently indexed one and moving backward until a suitable meta-analysis was found that included the mega-trial results in calculations of a summary effect for a primary endpoint of the mega-trial. If summary effect calculations for multiple primary endpoints of the mega-trial were presented in an eligible meta-analysis, we prioritized binary over continuous outcomes; and the primary outcome with the largest number of events in the mega-trial (or the smallest variance if all the endpoints were continuous).

To identify a meta-analysis that included the mega-trial for mortality effect summary estimate calculations, we similarly screened meta-analyses that had cited the earliest main publication of the mega-trials backward in time until the 10th meta-analysis. The same process in PubMed was used to identify citing meta-analyses. If 10 citing meta-analyses did not evaluate the outcome of mortality with eligible, usable data, we excluded that mega-trial from the mortality analysis.

Whenever a mega-trial included more than one active arm versus control, e.g. in a three-arm trial, or two or more different comparisons, e.g. in factorial design, we considered each eligible comparison separately and tried to identify respective meta-analyses.

Clinicaltrials.gov searches were last updated on 10/01/2023. PubMed searches were last updated on June 2023 by independent screeners and were done in duplicate.

Data extraction

For each selected meta-analysis, we extracted the results of RCTs included in the summary effect estimate that incorporated the effect estimate of the mega-trial. For each selected meta-analysis, we recorded the first author’s name, publication year, eligible endpoint, comparison of intervention versus control, type of masking, topic, and type of intervention. For each trial in each eligible meta-analysis, we recorded the first author’s name or acronym, publication year, total sample size, 2x2 table (or log (odds ratio) and variance thereof, if 2x2 table was not provided) for dichotomized outcomes and standardized mean difference (and variance thereof) for continuous outcomes. We also extracted information, whenever available, on the risk of bias assessments for each included trial based on Cochrane risk of bias tools (original, revised, and version 2).

All data extractions were performed in duplicate, and differences were settled by discussion. For any unsettled discrepancies, a third senior reviewer was invited to arbitrate.

Mega-trials (and their corresponding meta-analyses) that compare two active and overlapping interventions were analyzed as follows: if one intervention is a subset of the other, the subset intervention was considered as the control arm (e.g. in a trial comparing X+Y+Z to X+Y, X+Y was the control arm). If the interventions were not subsets of each other (e.g., X versus Y), the intervention that was approved by the FDA first was considered as the control arm.

Statistical analysis

In each eligible meta-analysis, we combined the results from non-mega-trials using random effects (and fixed effects as sensitivity analysis) and compared them against the results of the mega-trial. In meta-analyses where several mega-trials were available, the results of the mega-trials were combined using random effects first before being compared against the results of smaller trials. Any cluster trials included in the meta-analysis were considered to be non-mega-trials.

The odds ratio (OR) was used as the metric of choice. Standardized mean differences (for any eligible continuous outcomes) were also converted to ORs [17]. Between-trial heterogeneity in each group of trials (mega-trials and other trials) and for all trials considered together were assessed using τ2 between-study variance estimator, Q test, and I2 statistics[18].

We obtained the log(relative odds ratio) (logROR) and its variance (the sum of the variances of the logOR in the two groups) between the mega-trial(s) and the smaller trials for each eligible outcome. The logROR estimates were combined then across each outcome using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects calculations.

In all calculations, treatment effects in single trials and meta-analyses thereof were coined consistently in such a way that OR<1 means a more favorable outcome for the intervention than the control arm. In all analyses, heterogeneity was assessed using the τ2 between-study variance estimator, Q test, and I2 statistics [18].

A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess whether the results were different when non-mega-trials were included in the calculations only if they were published up until (and including) the year of publication of any mega-trials. This analysis more specifically targets the research question whether mega-trials corroborate the results of smaller trials that have been performed before them. A separate analysis also compared the results of non-mega-trials published up until the year of publication of the mega-trial versus those published subsequently.

Separate subgroup analyses were performed for the comparison of results in mega-trials versus other trials according to masking (open-label vs masked); intervention type; specialty (cardiovascular, others); and per heterogeneity (low vs non-low) of the mega-trials. We also performed exploratory meta-regressions considering the same variables (masking, type of outcome, type of intervention, specialty) and also risk of bias in the mega-trials (high versus other), risk of bias in the other trials (proportion at high risk), median number of participants in non-mega-trials, and total number of participants in non-mega-trials.

We also performed exploratory tests for small study effects (Egger’s test) [19], (when there were more than 10 trials).

Amendments to the original protocol

We extracted information for all mega-trials on whether they found statistically significant or nonsignificant results, and whether they were designed to show noninferiority. In several meta-analyses, some trials that did not pass the 10,000 threshold, but were substantially large to blur the effects. Therefore, we compared the results of mega-trials versus only the smaller trials that weighted less than 1/5th of the least weighted mega-trial; and another sensitivity analysis versus those that weighted less than 1/10th of the least weighted mega-trial. We then further restricted these trials to those published only before or up to the first trial.

Finally, we also assessed the risk of bias for the mega-trials that had not been assessed (or had been assessed using various non-Cochrane tools e.g. Jadad scale) using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool [20].

RESULTS

Identification of mega-trials and the respective meta-analyses

A total of 180 registered completed phase 3 or 4 trials that did not involve vaccines and that had 10,000 or more participants were identified through our search. Among these, 91 were randomized, non-cluster, non-vaccine mega-trials; but 38/91 lacked an appropriate meta-analysis and 2/91 had no published results, leaving 51 mega-trials with an eligible meta-analysis for either primary outcome and/or mortality. Results were compared to smaller trials across 58 meta-analyses for primary outcome (n=35 comparisons) and/or all-cause mortality (n=26 comparisons). In 3 topics, all-cause mortality was the mega-trial’s primary outcome. For 19 mega-trials that had a composite primary outcome, no eligible meta-analysis was identified for the complete composite outcome, therefore the meta-analysis of one of the subsets of the composite outcome with the highest number of events was analysed.

The eligible meta-analyses included estimates from another 30 mega-trials that had randomized, non-cluster design and >10,000 participants but had not been identified in our searches. 26/30 were not registered in clinicaltrials.gov, while the other 2/30 had no listed location (we had identified mega-trials by screening trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov by extracting the trials listed for every country), 1/30 had listed no results in clinicaltrials.gov, and for 1/30 no reason for missingness was identified. These 30 trials with their estimates for primary outcomes (n=20) and all-cause mortality (n=22) were considered in the mega-trials group in all calculations. The meta-analyses included an additional 1 mega-trial that had initially been identified by our search but had no eligible meta-analysis for the primary outcome and/or all-cause mortality but was meta-analyzed for another outcome.

In total, 82 mega-trials estimates were included across all meta-analyses for the primary outcome (n=69) and all-cause mortality (n=65). Detailed information regarding the selection of mega-trials is in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Flow chart of mega-trial selection.

Characteristics of mega-trials

64/82 mega-trials incuded in our analyses (Table 1, Supplementary Table 1&2) investigated cardiovascular outcomes. 17/82 mega-trials were centered around nutritional interventions, while the remaining covered various other medical interventions intervention types, such as pharmacological treatment (Table 1). Moreover, 15/82 mega-trials were open-label, while the remaining were double-blinded (n=65) or employed varying degrees of masking (n=2) (Table 1). 14/82 mega-trials were judged at high risk of bias. 32/82 had statistically significant results at p<0.05 for the primary outcome (30 favoring the intervention arm) and only 17/82 had statistically significant results at p<0.05 for all-cause mortality (13 favoring the intervention arm) (Table 1, Supplementary Table 1&2).

View this table:
Table 1. General characteristics of the included mega-trials

MA ID- The numbers listed for PO and MA, represent the respective meta-analyses that the respective mega-trials are included and are references for table 2 and 3. MA- Meta-analysis, PO- Primary Outcome, ACM- All-Cause Mortality, OR- Odds Ratio, CI-Confidence Interval, ROB- Risk of Bias, ACEi-Angiotenzin Converting Enzyme inhibitor, ARBs- Angiotenzing Receptor Blockers, GPI- Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors, DDP-14- Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 inhibitors, SGLT2-I, Sodium Glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 RA- Glucagon-like Peptide-1, LDL- Low Density Lipoprotein HDL- High Density Lipoprotein, NSAID- Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflamatory Drugs, MACE- Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event, CETP- Cholesteryl ester transfer protein.

Trials denoted by * were open label. All the other trials were blinded.

Trials denoted by † have had a composite primary outcome but have been meta-analyzed for only one subset of it. Information on the composite outcome results can be found on Supplementary Table S1.

Trials denoted by $ had been designed for proving non-inferiority.

Comparisons of mega-trials versus smaller trials: primary outcome

35 comparisons of mega-trials versus other trials were available. 85 estimates coming from 69 unique mega-trials were considered in these comparisons.

The total number of participants in the mega-trials had a median (IQR) of 15715 (12530-20114) across the 35 topics (Table 2). The total number of smaller trials across these 35 topics was 272 (median 6, range 1-45) (Table 2). The total number of participants in the smaller trials had a median (IQR) of 1639 (297-4128) across the 35 topics. 133/272 smaller trials were published before or up to the year of the first mega-trial of the respective topic. In 7 meta-analyses, the cumulative sample size of all the other, smaller trials exceeded the cumulative sample size of the mega-trials (Table 2).

View this table:
Table 2. Comparison of results of meta-analyses of mega-trials and other, smaller trials for primary outcome.

MA-

Meta-analysis

** No info on the sample size of one of the smaller trials

*One megatrial was clustered therefore was accounted for as a smaller trial

$ Comparisons with significant differences between mega-trials and smaller trial

Detailed information with forest plots on all of the 35 meta-analyses appears in Supplementary Material 1. In the summary analysis, there was no noteworthy discrepancy observed between the results of the mega-trials and those of smaller trials (summary ROR 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.04; I2=0.0, P-value for heterogeneity=0.478; Figure 2). In two instances when comparing ivabradine to placebo and new adenosine diphosphate receptor agonist versus clopidogrel, the disagreement between the mega-trials and the respective smaller trials was beyond chance (ROR 1.21, 95% CI, 1.0-1.47 and ROR 0.83, 95% CI, 0.73, 0.95, respectively) [21, 22].

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Agreement between mega-trials and smaller trials on the primary outcome and all-cause mortality.

Comparisons of mega-trials versus smaller trials: all-cause mortality

26 comparisons of mega-trials versus other trials were available. 70 estimates coming from 65 unique mega-trials were considered in these comparisons (Table 3). The total number of participants in all of the mega-trials had a median of 15919 (IQR, 12524-18857).

View this table:
Table 3. Comparison of results of meta-analyses of mega-trials and smaller trialls for all-cause mortality

MA-

Meta-analysis

*All-Cause Mortality was the Primary Outcome

$ Comparison with significant differences between mega-trials and smaller trial

The total number of smaller trials in these 26 meta-analyses was 267 (median per meta-analysis was 6, range 1-47). The cumulative number of participants from smaller trials was 1132 (IQR, 250-4038). 117/268 smaller trials were published before or up to the year of the first mega-trial of the respective topic. In 5 meta-analyses the cumulative number of participants in the other, smaller trials exceeded the total number of participants in the mega-trials (Table 3).

Comprehensive details and forest plots about the 26 meta-analyses appear in Supplementary Material 2.

In the summary analysis, no difference existed between the outcomes of the mega-trials and those of the smaller trials (summary ROR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97-1.04; I2=0, P-value for heterogeneity=0.60; Figure 3). In one instance testing effects of anti-inflammatory versus placebo in patients with coronary artery diseases the results differed beyond chance between mega-trials and the other, smaller trials (ROR, 0.79, 95% CI, 0.65-0.97), with mega-trial showing no effect while meta-analysis of smaller trials an increased risk [23].

Sensitivity analyses

Smaller trials showed a significant trend for larger effects when compared to mega-trials when they were published before the first megatrial (ROR 1.05, 95% CI, 1.01-1.10) for the primary outcome and a non-significant trend for all-cause mortality 1.03 (95% CI, 0.98-1.09) (Figure 4a & 4b). Results of smaller trials published before the mega-trial showed significantly higher benefits as compared to smaller trials published subsequently (ROR 0.91, 95% CI, 0.85-0.96) for primary outcome and similar trend (ROR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.87-1.02) for all-cause mortality (Supplementary Figure S1).

No difference was seen when results were pooled using fixed effects and other subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were also non-revealing (Supplementary Figures S2-S8).

No small-study effects were found for the meta-analyses for the primary outcome and one meta-analysis had a significant result for all-cause mortality [24].

Mega-trials not included in meta-analyses

Of the 38 mega-trials that were otherwise eligible but for which we could not retrieve any meta-analysis that included them (Supplementary Table 4), 9/38 had a statistically significant benefit at p<0.05 for the primary outcome (all favoring the intervention) and 5/38 had significant results for all-cause mortality (all favoring intervention).

Significance and non-inferiority across all mega-trials

In total, we analysed and/or described the results from 120 mega-trials. 41/120 showed a significant result for the primary outcome and 22/120 for all-cause mortality (33/120 (28%) and 18/120 (15%), respectively favoring the intervention over control). For studies with non-inferiority designs (n=17/120), 15/17 had reached noninferiority and 2/18 had significantly better results in the experimental arm versus the control for the primary outcome (Table 1, Supplementary Table 1&2).

DISCUSSION

Overall, outcomes from meta-analyses of other, smaller clinical trials aligned on average with those of mega-trials in the clinical topics that we examined. However, mega-trials tended to have less favorable results than the smaller trials that preceded them timewise; and smaller trials published after the mega-trials tended to have less favorable results than the smaller trials published before the mega-trials and aligned with the mega-trials. Most mega-trials do not show statistically significant benefits for the primary outcome of interest, and statistically significant benefits for mortality are rare. Mega-trials are not available for most medical topics. Given that small trials and their meta-analyses may give unreliable, inflated estimates of benefit, mega-trials, or at least substantially large trials with sufficient power, may need to be considered and performed more frequently.

The diminished benefits in late smaller trials versus early small trials are consistent also with prior meta-research studies that have shown that the reported effects of interventions change over time, with wider oscillations of results in early studies [25]. It has been observed that it is more frequent for treatment effects to decrease rather than increase over time [26-28]. In our examined topics, the mega-trials may have corrected some inflated effects seen in the earlier trials that preceded them. Then, the subsequent trials might have been more aligned with what mega-trials had shown since the mega-trials are likely to have been considered very influential.

Previous meta-research assessments have shown different levels of agreement between the results of meta-analyses of smaller trials and large clinical trials. For example, Cappelleri et al. reported compatible results of meta-analysis of smaller studies with the results of large trials, although discrepancies in their results were found in up to 10% of the cases [11]. However, other meta-studies on this topic showed larger differences with a discrepancy rate of up to 39% [13]. These previous studies used a definition of a large trial having enrolled 1,000 participants or more. In contrast, we used a sample size of 10,000 participants to define a mega-trial, and therefore having a larger power to detect effects.

A limitation of our study is that several early mega-trials are not included in the clinicaltrials.gov registry. Nevertheless, by screening the eligible meta-analysis we were able to identify several of these trials, and they were considered in our calculations. No differences in significance for primary outcome and mortality were found between mega-trials registered in clinicaltrials.gov and not, which suggests that if other meta-trials were missed, this would likely not affect our findings. Our comparative results versus smaller trials still do not include all mega-trials, since for some mega-trials retrieved in clinicaltrials.gov we found no relevant meta-analysis where they had been included. However, we did examine the main conclusions of these mega-trials and they also had low rates of statistically significant results. Therefore, we can conclude that mega-trials in general tend to give “negative” results for tested interventions. Mega-trials are unlikely to be launched unless there is genuine equipoise. Nevertheless, the low rate of significant benefits, as opposed to the much higher rates of favorable results seen in typical phase 3 trials is remarkable [29]. For example, one assessment found superiority results for 80% of industry-funded and 44% of publicly-funded phase 3 trials in oncology [29].

Results from smaller and larger trials are needed as they both contribute to the generation of evidence. Confirmatory – well-designed and well-powered large studies are needed for common clinical questions. Mega-trials are done very sparingly to date, but it would be beneficial to add more such trials to the clinical research armamentarium.

Data Availability

All data in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of interest: None

  • Data sharing: All data are available from the authors upon request

  • Funding: The work of John Ioannidis is supported by an unrestricted gift from Sue and Bob O’Donnell to Stanford University. The work of Lum Kastrati is supported by Swiss Government Scholarship for Excellence and funding from University of Bern and Insel Spital.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Yusuf, S., R. Collins, and R. Peto, Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? Stat Med, 1984. 3(4): p. 409–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    Peto, R., R. Collins, and R. Gray, Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials. J Clin Epidemiol, 1995. 48(1): p. 23–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    Cummings, S.R. and C. Rosen, VITAL Findings - A Decisive Verdict on Vitamin D Supplementation. N Engl J Med, 2022. 387(4): p. 368–370.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    LeBoff, M.S., et al., Supplemental Vitamin D and Incident Fractures in Midlife and Older Adults. N Engl J Med, 2022. 387(4): p. 299–309.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Lancet, 1988. 2(8607): p. 349-60.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    Janiaud, P., R. Dal-Re, and J.P.A. Ioannidis, Assessment of Pragmatism in Recently Published Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Intern Med, 2018. 178(9): p. 1278–1280.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Zuidgeest, M.G., et al., PRECIS-2 in perspective: what is next for pragmatic trials? J Clin Epidemiol, 2017. 84: p. 22–24.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    Peto, L., P. Horby, and M. Landray, Establishing COVID-19 trials at scale and pace: Experience from the RECOVERY trial. Adv Biol Regul, 2022. 86: p. 100901.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    Dwan, K., et al., Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med, 2014. 11(6): p. e1001666.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Dwan, K., et al., Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One, 2008. 3(8): p. e3081.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Cappelleri, J.C., et al., Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare? JAMA, 1996. 276(16): p. 1332–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    LeLorier, J., et al., Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med, 1997. 337(8): p. 536–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D.G., et al., Comparison of large versus smaller randomized trials for mental health-related interventions. Am J Psychiatry, 2005. 162(3): p. 578–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Sivakumar, H. and P.J. Peyton, Poor agreement in significant findings between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized trials in perioperative medicine. Br J Anaesth, 2016. 117(4): p. 431–441.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Sterne, J.A., et al., Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Bmj, 2011. 343: p. d4002.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    Stanley, T.D., H. Doucouliagos, and J.P. Ioannidis, Finding the power to reduce publication bias. Stat Med, 2017. 36(10): p. 1580–1598.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Chinn, S., A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med, 2000. 19(22): p. 3127–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    Higgins, J.P., et al., Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 2003. 327(7414): p. 557-60.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    Egger, M., et al., Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj, 1997. 315(7109): p. 629-34.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    Sterne, J.A.C., et al., RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj, 2019. 366: p. l4898.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    Maagaard, M., et al., Ivabradine added to usual care in patients with heart failure: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2022. 27(4): p. 224–234.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    Bae, J.S. and J.S. Jang, Comparison of new adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonists with clopidogrel in patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Heart Vessels, 2016. 31(3): p. 275–87.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Niu, Y., et al., Safety and efficacy of anti-inflammatory therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2022. 22(1): p. 84.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Ennezat, P.V., et al., Extent of Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and All-cause and Cardiovascular Mortality Benefit: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol, 2023. 81(1): p. 35–44.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Ioannidis, J. and J. Lau, Evolution of treatment effects over time: empirical insight from recursive cumulative metaanalyses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2001. 98(3): p. 831–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    Parish, A.J., et al., An umbrella review of effect size, bias, and power across meta-analyses in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med, 2021. 28(12): p. 1379–1388.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.
    Pereira, T.V., R.I. Horwitz, and J.P. Ioannidis, Empirical evaluation of very large treatment effects of medical interventions. Jama, 2012. 308(16): p. 1676–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    Trikalinos, T.A., et al., Effect sizes in cumulative meta-analyses of mental health randomized trials evolved over time. J Clin Epidemiol, 2004. 57(11): p. 1124–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    Djulbegovic, B., et al., Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials. PLoS One, 2013. 8(3): p. e58711.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.
    Aberle, D.R., et al., Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med, 2011. 365(5): p. 395–409.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.
    Jamerson, K., et al., Benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med, 2008. 359(23): p. 2417–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.
    Huo, Y., et al., Efficacy of folic acid therapy in primary prevention of stroke among adults with hypertension in China: the CSPPT randomized clinical trial. Jama, 2015. 313(13): p. 1325–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.
    Bosch, J., et al., n-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with dysglycemia. N Engl J Med, 2012. 367(4): p. 309–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.
    Vranckx, P., et al., Ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months vs aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months after implantation of a drug-eluting stent: a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial. Lancet, 2018. 392(10151): p. 940–949.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. 35.
    Gerstein, H.C., et al., Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2008. 358(24): p. 2545–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.
    Pepine, C.J., et al., A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial. Jama, 2003. 290(21): p. 2805–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.
    Yokoyama, M., et al., Effects of eicosapentaenoic acid on major coronary events in hypercholesterolaemic patients (JELIS): a randomised open-label, blinded endpoint analysis. Lancet, 2007. 369(9567): p. 1090-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.
    Ikeda, Y., et al., Low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in Japanese patients 60 years or older with atherosclerotic risk factors: a randomized clinical trial. Jama, 2014. 312(23): p. 2510–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.
    Manson, J.E., et al., Vitamin D Supplements and Prevention of Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J Med, 2019. 380(1): p. 33–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.
    Albert, C.M., et al., Effect of Marine Omega-3 Fatty Acid and Vitamin D Supplementation on Incident Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Jama, 2021. 325(11): p. 1061–1073.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.
    Nissen, S.E., et al., Cardiovascular Safety of Celecoxib, Naproxen, or Ibuprofen for Arthritis. N Engl J Med, 2016. 375(26): p. 2519–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.
    Yusuf, S., et al., Telmisartan to prevent recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med, 2008. 359(12): p. 1225–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. 43.
    Antman, E.M., et al., Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin with fibrinolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med, 2006. 354(14): p. 1477–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  44. 44.
    Jukema, J.W., et al., Alirocumab in Patients With Polyvascular Disease and Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome: ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2019. 74(9): p. 1167–1176.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  45. 45.
    Zampieri, F.G., et al., Effect of Intravenous Fluid Treatment With a Balanced Solution vs 0.9% Saline Solution on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial. Jama, 2021. 326(9): p. 1–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.
    Fox, K., et al., Ivabradine for patients with stable coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet, 2008. 372(9641): p. 807-16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.
    Hercberg, S., et al., The SU.VI.MAX Study: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the health effects of antioxidant vitamins and minerals. Arch Intern Med, 2004. 164(21): p. 2335–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. 48.
    Landray, M.J., et al., Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med, 2014. 371(3): p. 203–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. 49.
    Ridker, P.M., et al., Cardiovascular Efficacy and Safety of Bococizumab in High-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med, 2017. 376(16): p. 1527–1539.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.
    Barter, P.J., et al., Effects of torcetrapib in patients at high risk for coronary events. N Engl J Med, 2007. 357(21): p. 2109–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.
    Wallentin, L., et al., Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med, 2009. 361(11): p. 1045–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. 52.
    Scirica, B.M., et al., Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med, 2013. 369(14): p. 1317–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. 53.
    Bhatt, D.L., et al., Sotagliflozin in Patients with Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease. N Engl J Med, 2021. 384(2): p. 129–139.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.
    White, H.D., et al., Darapladib for preventing ischemic events in stable coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med, 2014. 370(18): p. 1702–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  55. 55.
    Holman, R.R., et al., Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2017. 377(13): p. 1228–1239.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.
    Mehta, S.R., et al., Double-dose versus standard-dose clopidogrel and high-dose versus low-dose aspirin in individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes (CURRENT-OASIS 7): a randomised factorial trial. Lancet, 2010. 376(9748): p. 1233-43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. 57.
    Devereaux, P.J., et al., Clonidine in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med, 2014. 370(16): p. 1504–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. 58.
    Bhatt, D.L., et al., Clopidogrel and aspirin versus aspirin alone for the prevention of atherothrombotic events. N Engl J Med, 2006. 354(16): p. 1706–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  59. 59.
    Giugliano, R.P., et al., Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med, 2013. 369(22): p. 2093–104.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  60. 60.
    Mega, J.L., et al., Rivaroxaban in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med, 2012. 366(1): p. 9–19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  61. 61.
    Bohula, E.A., et al., Cardiovascular Safety of Lorcaserin in Overweight or Obese Patients. N Engl J Med, 2018. 379(12): p. 1107–1117.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.
    O’Donoghue, M.L., et al., Effect of darapladib on major coronary events after an acute coronary syndrome: the SOLID-TIMI 52 randomized clinical trial. Jama, 2014. 312(10): p. 1006–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  63. 63.
    Yusuf, S., et al., Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events. N Engl J Med, 2008. 358(15): p. 1547–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  64. 64.
    Fox, K., et al., Ivabradine in stable coronary artery disease without clinical heart failure. N Engl J Med, 2014. 371(12): p. 1091–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  65. 65.
    Chen, Z.M., et al., Early intravenous then oral metoprolol in 45,852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet, 2005. 366(9497): p. 1622-32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  66. 66.
    Bowman, L., et al., Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease. N Engl J Med, 2017. 377(13): p. 1217–1227.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. 67.
    Ridker, P.M., et al., Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med, 2008. 359(21): p. 2195–207.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  68. 68.
    Gaziano, J.M., et al., Use of aspirin to reduce risk of initial vascular events in patients at moderate risk of cardiovascular disease (ARRIVE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet, 2018. 392(10152): p. 1036–1046.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.
    Lincoff, A.M., et al., Evacetrapib and Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Vascular Disease. N Engl J Med, 2017. 376(20): p. 1933–1942.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.
    Schwartz, G.G., et al., Effects of dalcetrapib in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med, 2012. 367(22): p. 2089–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  71. 71.
    Wiviott, S.D., et al., Dapagliflozin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2019. 380(4): p. 347–357.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.
    Neal, B., et al., Canagliflozin and Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2017. 377(7): p. 644–657.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. 73.
    Ridker, P.M., et al., Antiinflammatory Therapy with Canakinumab for Atherosclerotic Disease. N Engl J Med, 2017. 377(12): p. 1119–1131.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.
    Roncaglioni, M.C., et al., n-3 fatty acids in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors. N Engl J Med, 2013. 368(19): p. 1800–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  75. 75.
    Bonaca, M.P., et al., Long-term use of ticagrelor in patients with prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med, 2015. 372(19): p. 1791–800.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.
    Eikelboom, J.W., et al., Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J Med, 2017. 377(14): p. 1319–1330.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.
    Wiviott, S.D., et al., Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med, 2007. 357(20): p. 2001–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  78. 78.
    Yusuf, S., et al., Cholesterol Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J Med, 2016. 374(21): p. 2021–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.
    Bowman, L., et al., Effects of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus. N Engl J Med, 2018. 379(16): p. 1529–1539.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.
    Abtan, J., et al., Efficacy and Safety of Cangrelor in Preventing Periprocedural Complications in Patients With Stable Angina and Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The CHAMPION PHOENIX Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2016. 9(18): p. 1905–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  81. 81.
    Bonney, A., et al., Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2022. 8(8): p. Cd013829.
    OpenUrl
  82. 82.
    Chi, C., et al., Angiotensin System Blockade Combined With Calcium Channel Blockers Is Superior to Other Combinations in Cardiovascular Protection With Similar Blood Pressure Reduction: A Meta-Analysis in 20,451 Hypertensive Patients. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich), 2016. 18(8): p. 801–8.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.
    Li, Y., et al., Folic Acid Supplementation and the Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Am Heart Assoc, 2016. 5(8).
  84. 84.
    Yu, F., et al., Effects of omega-3 fatty acid on major cardiovascular outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore), 2022. 101(30): p. e29556.
    OpenUrl
  85. 85.
    Tsigkas, G., et al., Very Short Versus Longer Dual Antiplatelet Treatment After Coronary Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs, 2023. 23(1): p. 35–46.
    OpenUrl
  86. 86.
    Hasebe, M., et al., Efficacy of antihyperglycemic therapies on cardiovascular and heart failure outcomes: an updated meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis of 35 randomized cardiovascular outcome trials. Cardiovasc Diabetol, 2023. 22(1): p. 62.
    OpenUrl
  87. 87.
    Khan, N. and F.A. McAlister, Re-examining the efficacy of beta-blockers for the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analysis. Cmaj, 2006. 174(12): p. 1737–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. 88.
    Wang, M., et al., Benefits and Risks Associated with Low-Dose Aspirin Use for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials and Trial Sequential Analysis. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs, 2022. 22(6): p. 657–675.
    OpenUrl
  89. 89.
    Keum, N., et al., Vitamin D supplementation and total cancer incidence and mortality by daily vs. infrequent large-bolus dosing strategies: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Cancer, 2022. 127(5): p. 872–878.
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.
    Gencer, B., et al., Effect of Long-Term Marine lll-3 Fatty Acids Supplementation on the Risk of Atrial Fibrillation in Randomized Controlled Trials of Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Circulation, 2021. 144(25): p. 1981–1990.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.
    Cheng, B.R., et al., Cardiovascular safety of celecoxib in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2021. 16(12): p. e0261239.
    OpenUrl
  92. 92.
    Tharmaratnam, D., et al., Is Blood Pressure Lowering in the Very Elderly With Previous Stroke Associated With a Higher Risk of Adverse Events? J Am Heart Assoc, 2021. 10(24): p. e022240.
    OpenUrl
  93. 93.
    Singh, S., et al., Adjunctive low molecular weight heparin during fibrinolytic therapy in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Clin Cardiol, 2009. 32(7): p. 358–64.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  94. 94.
    Alkhalil, M., et al., Meta-Analysis of Intensive Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Patients With Polyvascular Disease. J Am Heart Assoc, 2021. 10(5): p. e017948.
    OpenUrl
  95. 95.
    Dong, W.H., et al., Fluid resuscitation with balanced crystalloids versus normal saline in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2022. 30(1): p. 28.
    OpenUrl
  96. 96.
    Yang, J., et al., β-Carotene Supplementation and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients, 2022. 14(6).
  97. 97.
    Schandelmaier, S., et al., Niacin for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017. 6(6): p. Cd009744.
    OpenUrl
  98. 98.
    Chiavaroli, L., et al., Effect of low glycaemic index or load dietary patterns on glycaemic control and cardiometabolic risk factors in diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Bmj, 2021. 374: p. n1651.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. 99.
    Zhuo, X., et al., Adverse clinical outcomes associated with double dose clopidogrel compared to the other antiplatelet regimens in patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol, 2018. 19(1): p. 54.
    OpenUrl
  100. 100.
    Duncan, D., et al., Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists for the prevention of cardiac complications among adults undergoing surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2018. 3(3): p. Cd004126.
    OpenUrl
  101. 101.
    Fanari, Z., et al., Long-term use of dual antiplatelet therapy for the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Revasc Med, 2017. 18(1): p. 10–15.
    OpenUrl
  102. 102.
    Liang, X., et al., The efficacy and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin in preventing clinical events in atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anatol J Cardiol, 2021. 25(2): p. 77–88.
    OpenUrl
  103. 103.
    Yuan, J., Efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to the anti-platelet regimen in patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol, 2018. 19(1): p. 19.
    OpenUrl
  104. 104.
    Zhang, L., et al., Cardiovascular safety of long-term anti-obesity drugs in subjects with overweight or obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Pharmacol, 2021. 77(11): p. 1611–1621.
    OpenUrl
  105. 105.
    Albasri, A., et al., Association between antihypertensive treatment and adverse events: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmj, 2021. 372: p. n189.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  106. 106.
    Maagaard, M., et al., Effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. Open Heart, 2020. 7(2).
  107. 107.
    Safi, S., et al., Beta-blockers for suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019. 12(12): p. Cd012484.
    OpenUrl
  108. 108.
    Wang, Y., et al., The effect of folic acid in patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore), 2019. 98(37): p. e17095.
    OpenUrl
  109. 109.
    Sardar, P., et al., Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Glucose Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Different Regions of the World: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Am Heart Assoc, 2015. 4(5).
  110. 110.
    Riaz, H., et al., Effects of high-density lipoprotein targeting treatments on cardiovascular outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol, 2019. 26(5): p. 533–543.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  111. 111.
    Rados, D.V., et al., Metabolic effects of antihyperglycemic agents and mortality: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci Rep, 2020. 10(1): p. 12837.
    OpenUrl
  112. 112.
    Wanas, Y., et al., Assessing the risk of angiotensin receptor blockers on major cardiovascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2020. 20(1): p. 188.
    OpenUrl
  113. 113.
    Ali, M.U., et al., The effectiveness of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors on cardiorenal outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Diabetol, 2024. 23(1): p. 72.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted May 09, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Agreement between mega-trials and smaller trials: a meta-research study
Lum Kastrati, Hamidreza Raeisi-Dehkordi, Erand Llanaj, Hugo G. Quezada-Pinedo, Farnaz Khatami, Noushin Sadat Ahanchi, Adea Llane, Renald Meçani, Taulant Muka, John P.A. Ioannidis
medRxiv 2024.05.09.24307122; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.09.24307122
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area