Meta-analyses frequently include old trials that are associated with a larger intervention effect: a meta-epidemiological study
•Trials published before 2000 represented one fourth of all trials included in meta-analyses and trials published before 1990 almost 10%. The oldest trial was published in 1951.•Intervention effects were, on average, significantly larger for older than recent trials.•Results were consistent in sensi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2022-05, Vol.145, p.144-153 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 153 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 144 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| container_volume | 145 |
| creator | Smail-Faugeron, Violaine Tan, Aidan Caille, Agnès Yordanov, Youri Hajage, David Tubach, Florence Martin, Guillaume Dechartres, Agnès |
| description | •Trials published before 2000 represented one fourth of all trials included in meta-analyses and trials published before 1990 almost 10%. The oldest trial was published in 1951.•Intervention effects were, on average, significantly larger for older than recent trials.•Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses adjusted on risk of bias and sample size.•It is generally recommended to include all trials within a meta-analysis whatever their publication date but this may have an influence on external validity and intervention effect.•With a biomedical literature that is increasing exponentially, we wonder whether it is reasonable to consider the results of old trials sometimes conducted more than 50 years ago.
To assess whether meta-analyses include older randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether intervention effect differ between older and recent RCTs.
In this meta-epidemiological study of 295 meta-analyses (2940 RCTs) published in 2017–2018, we evaluated the difference in intervention effects between older (i.e., published before 2000) and recent RCTs. We also compared effects by quarters of publication year within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 including the 25% oldest trials to quarter 4 including the 25% most recent trials). A ratio of odds ratio (ROR) |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.023 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_inserm_03868048v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0895435622000361</els_id><sourcerecordid>2678351515</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-cba6734404c4a7aa772d24d0ac9675883d629cf13277f9bec1444200c3ae3b6d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkb1uFDEUhUcIRJbAK0SWaCiYwX9je6iIIiBIi2igtrz2naxXnvFiezbailfHq01S0CAXt_B3zr06p2muCO4IJuLDrtvZ4GfY-45iSjtMOkzZs2ZFlFRtP1DyvFlhNfQtZ724aF7lvMOYSCz7l80F6wkjXMhV8-c7FNOa2YRjhozGBL8XmEs4Ij_bsDhAMThUkjcho7I1BZkEyOQcrTcFHLr3ZYsMCibdQaqiAulQDXycEYwj2PKx_k6nJfVWB5OPId55awLKZXHH182LsVrDm4d52fz68vnnzW27_vH12831urVckdLajRGScY655UYaIyV1lDts7CBkrxRzgg52JIxKOQ4bsIRzTjG2zADbCMcum_dn360Jep_8ZNJRR-P17fVa-zlDmjRmSijM1YFU_N0Z36dYA8lFTz5bCMHMEJesqaBCqUEKWtG3_6C7uKQa6ImSqkZdX6XEmbIp5pxgfDqCYH1qVO_0Y6P61KjGRNdGq_DqwX7ZTOCeZI8VVuDTGYAa38FD0tl6mC04n2r82kX_vx1_Abk5tkk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2678351515</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Meta-analyses frequently include old trials that are associated with a larger intervention effect: a meta-epidemiological study</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Smail-Faugeron, Violaine ; Tan, Aidan ; Caille, Agnès ; Yordanov, Youri ; Hajage, David ; Tubach, Florence ; Martin, Guillaume ; Dechartres, Agnès</creator><creatorcontrib>Smail-Faugeron, Violaine ; Tan, Aidan ; Caille, Agnès ; Yordanov, Youri ; Hajage, David ; Tubach, Florence ; Martin, Guillaume ; Dechartres, Agnès</creatorcontrib><description>•Trials published before 2000 represented one fourth of all trials included in meta-analyses and trials published before 1990 almost 10%. The oldest trial was published in 1951.•Intervention effects were, on average, significantly larger for older than recent trials.•Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses adjusted on risk of bias and sample size.•It is generally recommended to include all trials within a meta-analysis whatever their publication date but this may have an influence on external validity and intervention effect.•With a biomedical literature that is increasing exponentially, we wonder whether it is reasonable to consider the results of old trials sometimes conducted more than 50 years ago.
To assess whether meta-analyses include older randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether intervention effect differ between older and recent RCTs.
In this meta-epidemiological study of 295 meta-analyses (2940 RCTs) published in 2017–2018, we evaluated the difference in intervention effects between older (i.e., published before 2000) and recent RCTs. We also compared effects by quarters of publication year within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 including the 25% oldest trials to quarter 4 including the 25% most recent trials). A ratio of odds ratio (ROR) <1 indicates larger effects in older than recent RCTs.
Trials published before 2000 and before 1990 represented 25% and 10% of all trials, respectively. Intervention effects were significantly larger for old than recent RCTs (ROR = 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85–1.00, I2 = 22%). Compared with the most recent trials (quarter 4), intervention effects were significantly larger for the oldest trials (quarter 1) (ROR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79–0.92) and for trials in quarter 2 (ROR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.83–0.96) but not for trials in quarter 3 (ROR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.91–1.05).
Intervention effects were larger for older than recent RCTs. Meta-analyses including older trials should be interpreted cautiously.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.023</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35131467</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Bias ; Clinical medicine ; Confidence intervals ; Epidemiology ; Estimates ; External validity ; Intervention ; Life Sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Meta-epidemiology ; Publication date ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2022-05, Vol.145, p.144-153</ispartof><rights>2022</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited May 2022</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-cba6734404c4a7aa772d24d0ac9675883d629cf13277f9bec1444200c3ae3b6d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-cba6734404c4a7aa772d24d0ac9675883d629cf13277f9bec1444200c3ae3b6d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8475-4090 ; 0000-0001-6651-474X ; 0000-0002-3197-6650 ; 0000-0003-0671-6547 ; 0000-0003-0770-5567 ; 0000-0003-4081-2209 ; 0000-0003-4715-6144</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2678351515?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3541,27915,27916,45986,64374,64376,64378,72230</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35131467$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://inserm.hal.science/inserm-03868048$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Smail-Faugeron, Violaine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Aidan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caille, Agnès</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yordanov, Youri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hajage, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tubach, Florence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Guillaume</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dechartres, Agnès</creatorcontrib><title>Meta-analyses frequently include old trials that are associated with a larger intervention effect: a meta-epidemiological study</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>•Trials published before 2000 represented one fourth of all trials included in meta-analyses and trials published before 1990 almost 10%. The oldest trial was published in 1951.•Intervention effects were, on average, significantly larger for older than recent trials.•Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses adjusted on risk of bias and sample size.•It is generally recommended to include all trials within a meta-analysis whatever their publication date but this may have an influence on external validity and intervention effect.•With a biomedical literature that is increasing exponentially, we wonder whether it is reasonable to consider the results of old trials sometimes conducted more than 50 years ago.
To assess whether meta-analyses include older randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether intervention effect differ between older and recent RCTs.
In this meta-epidemiological study of 295 meta-analyses (2940 RCTs) published in 2017–2018, we evaluated the difference in intervention effects between older (i.e., published before 2000) and recent RCTs. We also compared effects by quarters of publication year within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 including the 25% oldest trials to quarter 4 including the 25% most recent trials). A ratio of odds ratio (ROR) <1 indicates larger effects in older than recent RCTs.
Trials published before 2000 and before 1990 represented 25% and 10% of all trials, respectively. Intervention effects were significantly larger for old than recent RCTs (ROR = 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85–1.00, I2 = 22%). Compared with the most recent trials (quarter 4), intervention effects were significantly larger for the oldest trials (quarter 1) (ROR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79–0.92) and for trials in quarter 2 (ROR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.83–0.96) but not for trials in quarter 3 (ROR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.91–1.05).
Intervention effects were larger for older than recent RCTs. Meta-analyses including older trials should be interpreted cautiously.</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>External validity</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Meta-epidemiology</subject><subject>Publication date</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkb1uFDEUhUcIRJbAK0SWaCiYwX9je6iIIiBIi2igtrz2naxXnvFiezbailfHq01S0CAXt_B3zr06p2muCO4IJuLDrtvZ4GfY-45iSjtMOkzZs2ZFlFRtP1DyvFlhNfQtZ724aF7lvMOYSCz7l80F6wkjXMhV8-c7FNOa2YRjhozGBL8XmEs4Ij_bsDhAMThUkjcho7I1BZkEyOQcrTcFHLr3ZYsMCibdQaqiAulQDXycEYwj2PKx_k6nJfVWB5OPId55awLKZXHH182LsVrDm4d52fz68vnnzW27_vH12831urVckdLajRGScY655UYaIyV1lDts7CBkrxRzgg52JIxKOQ4bsIRzTjG2zADbCMcum_dn360Jep_8ZNJRR-P17fVa-zlDmjRmSijM1YFU_N0Z36dYA8lFTz5bCMHMEJesqaBCqUEKWtG3_6C7uKQa6ImSqkZdX6XEmbIp5pxgfDqCYH1qVO_0Y6P61KjGRNdGq_DqwX7ZTOCeZI8VVuDTGYAa38FD0tl6mC04n2r82kX_vx1_Abk5tkk</recordid><startdate>20220501</startdate><enddate>20220501</enddate><creator>Smail-Faugeron, Violaine</creator><creator>Tan, Aidan</creator><creator>Caille, Agnès</creator><creator>Yordanov, Youri</creator><creator>Hajage, David</creator><creator>Tubach, Florence</creator><creator>Martin, Guillaume</creator><creator>Dechartres, Agnès</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8475-4090</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6651-474X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3197-6650</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0671-6547</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0770-5567</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4081-2209</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4715-6144</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220501</creationdate><title>Meta-analyses frequently include old trials that are associated with a larger intervention effect: a meta-epidemiological study</title><author>Smail-Faugeron, Violaine ; Tan, Aidan ; Caille, Agnès ; Yordanov, Youri ; Hajage, David ; Tubach, Florence ; Martin, Guillaume ; Dechartres, Agnès</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-cba6734404c4a7aa772d24d0ac9675883d629cf13277f9bec1444200c3ae3b6d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>External validity</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Meta-epidemiology</topic><topic>Publication date</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Smail-Faugeron, Violaine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Aidan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caille, Agnès</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yordanov, Youri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hajage, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tubach, Florence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martin, Guillaume</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dechartres, Agnès</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health Management</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Smail-Faugeron, Violaine</au><au>Tan, Aidan</au><au>Caille, Agnès</au><au>Yordanov, Youri</au><au>Hajage, David</au><au>Tubach, Florence</au><au>Martin, Guillaume</au><au>Dechartres, Agnès</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Meta-analyses frequently include old trials that are associated with a larger intervention effect: a meta-epidemiological study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2022-05-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>145</volume><spage>144</spage><epage>153</epage><pages>144-153</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>•Trials published before 2000 represented one fourth of all trials included in meta-analyses and trials published before 1990 almost 10%. The oldest trial was published in 1951.•Intervention effects were, on average, significantly larger for older than recent trials.•Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses adjusted on risk of bias and sample size.•It is generally recommended to include all trials within a meta-analysis whatever their publication date but this may have an influence on external validity and intervention effect.•With a biomedical literature that is increasing exponentially, we wonder whether it is reasonable to consider the results of old trials sometimes conducted more than 50 years ago.
To assess whether meta-analyses include older randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether intervention effect differ between older and recent RCTs.
In this meta-epidemiological study of 295 meta-analyses (2940 RCTs) published in 2017–2018, we evaluated the difference in intervention effects between older (i.e., published before 2000) and recent RCTs. We also compared effects by quarters of publication year within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 including the 25% oldest trials to quarter 4 including the 25% most recent trials). A ratio of odds ratio (ROR) <1 indicates larger effects in older than recent RCTs.
Trials published before 2000 and before 1990 represented 25% and 10% of all trials, respectively. Intervention effects were significantly larger for old than recent RCTs (ROR = 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85–1.00, I2 = 22%). Compared with the most recent trials (quarter 4), intervention effects were significantly larger for the oldest trials (quarter 1) (ROR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79–0.92) and for trials in quarter 2 (ROR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.83–0.96) but not for trials in quarter 3 (ROR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.91–1.05).
Intervention effects were larger for older than recent RCTs. Meta-analyses including older trials should be interpreted cautiously.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>35131467</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.023</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8475-4090</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6651-474X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3197-6650</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0671-6547</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0770-5567</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4081-2209</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4715-6144</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2022-05, Vol.145, p.144-153 |
| issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_inserm_03868048v1 |
| source | ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Bias Clinical medicine Confidence intervals Epidemiology Estimates External validity Intervention Life Sciences Meta-analysis Meta-epidemiology Publication date Systematic review |
| title | Meta-analyses frequently include old trials that are associated with a larger intervention effect: a meta-epidemiological study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T01%3A45%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Meta-analyses%20frequently%20include%20old%20trials%20that%20are%20associated%20with%20a%20larger%20intervention%20effect:%20a%20meta-epidemiological%20study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Smail-Faugeron,%20Violaine&rft.date=2022-05-01&rft.volume=145&rft.spage=144&rft.epage=153&rft.pages=144-153&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.023&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2678351515%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2678351515&rft_id=info:pmid/35131467&rft_els_id=S0895435622000361&rfr_iscdi=true |