The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews.

Most meta-analyses include data from one or more small studies that, individually, do not have power to detect an intervention effect. The relative influence of adequately powered and underpowered studies in published meta-analyses has not previously been explored. We examine the distribution of pow...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Rebecca M Turner, Sheila M Bird, Julian P T Higgins
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3609745?pdf=render
id doaj-5edcf5c1d4ba42369b0c939c5a6eafe7
record_format Article
spelling doaj-5edcf5c1d4ba42369b0c939c5a6eafe72020-11-25T02:27:09ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032013-01-0183e5920210.1371/journal.pone.0059202The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews.Rebecca M TurnerSheila M BirdJulian P T HigginsMost meta-analyses include data from one or more small studies that, individually, do not have power to detect an intervention effect. The relative influence of adequately powered and underpowered studies in published meta-analyses has not previously been explored. We examine the distribution of power available in studies within meta-analyses published in Cochrane reviews, and investigate the impact of underpowered studies on meta-analysis results.For 14,886 meta-analyses of binary outcomes from 1,991 Cochrane reviews, we calculated power per study within each meta-analysis. We defined adequate power as ≥50% power to detect a 30% relative risk reduction. In a subset of 1,107 meta-analyses including 5 or more studies with at least two adequately powered and at least one underpowered, results were compared with and without underpowered studies. In 10,492 (70%) of 14,886 meta-analyses, all included studies were underpowered; only 2,588 (17%) included at least two adequately powered studies. 34% of the meta-analyses themselves were adequately powered. The median of summary relative risks was 0.75 across all meta-analyses (inter-quartile range 0.55 to 0.89). In the subset examined, odds ratios in underpowered studies were 15% lower (95% CI 11% to 18%, P<0.0001) than in adequately powered studies, in meta-analyses of controlled pharmacological trials; and 12% lower (95% CI 7% to 17%, P<0.0001) in meta-analyses of controlled non-pharmacological trials. The standard error of the intervention effect increased by a median of 11% (inter-quartile range -1% to 35%) when underpowered studies were omitted; and between-study heterogeneity tended to decrease.When at least two adequately powered studies are available in meta-analyses reported by Cochrane reviews, underpowered studies often contribute little information, and could be left out if a rapid review of the evidence is required. However, underpowered studies made up the entirety of the evidence in most Cochrane reviews.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3609745?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Rebecca M Turner
Sheila M Bird
Julian P T Higgins
spellingShingle Rebecca M Turner
Sheila M Bird
Julian P T Higgins
The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Rebecca M Turner
Sheila M Bird
Julian P T Higgins
author_sort Rebecca M Turner
title The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews.
title_short The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews.
title_full The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews.
title_fullStr The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews.
title_full_unstemmed The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews.
title_sort impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in cochrane reviews.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2013-01-01
description Most meta-analyses include data from one or more small studies that, individually, do not have power to detect an intervention effect. The relative influence of adequately powered and underpowered studies in published meta-analyses has not previously been explored. We examine the distribution of power available in studies within meta-analyses published in Cochrane reviews, and investigate the impact of underpowered studies on meta-analysis results.For 14,886 meta-analyses of binary outcomes from 1,991 Cochrane reviews, we calculated power per study within each meta-analysis. We defined adequate power as ≥50% power to detect a 30% relative risk reduction. In a subset of 1,107 meta-analyses including 5 or more studies with at least two adequately powered and at least one underpowered, results were compared with and without underpowered studies. In 10,492 (70%) of 14,886 meta-analyses, all included studies were underpowered; only 2,588 (17%) included at least two adequately powered studies. 34% of the meta-analyses themselves were adequately powered. The median of summary relative risks was 0.75 across all meta-analyses (inter-quartile range 0.55 to 0.89). In the subset examined, odds ratios in underpowered studies were 15% lower (95% CI 11% to 18%, P<0.0001) than in adequately powered studies, in meta-analyses of controlled pharmacological trials; and 12% lower (95% CI 7% to 17%, P<0.0001) in meta-analyses of controlled non-pharmacological trials. The standard error of the intervention effect increased by a median of 11% (inter-quartile range -1% to 35%) when underpowered studies were omitted; and between-study heterogeneity tended to decrease.When at least two adequately powered studies are available in meta-analyses reported by Cochrane reviews, underpowered studies often contribute little information, and could be left out if a rapid review of the evidence is required. However, underpowered studies made up the entirety of the evidence in most Cochrane reviews.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3609745?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT rebeccamturner theimpactofstudysizeonmetaanalysesexaminationofunderpoweredstudiesincochranereviews
AT sheilambird theimpactofstudysizeonmetaanalysesexaminationofunderpoweredstudiesincochranereviews
AT julianpthiggins theimpactofstudysizeonmetaanalysesexaminationofunderpoweredstudiesincochranereviews
AT rebeccamturner impactofstudysizeonmetaanalysesexaminationofunderpoweredstudiesincochranereviews
AT sheilambird impactofstudysizeonmetaanalysesexaminationofunderpoweredstudiesincochranereviews
AT julianpthiggins impactofstudysizeonmetaanalysesexaminationofunderpoweredstudiesincochranereviews
_version_ 1724843964551397376