IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/0050004.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In the Era of Systematic Reviews, Does the Size of an Individual Trial Still Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Gordon H Guyatt
  • Edward J Mills
  • Diana Elbourne

Abstract

: Systematic reviews that combine high-quality evidence from several trials are now widely considered to be at the top of the hierarchy of clinical evidence. Given the primacy of systematic reviews—and the fact that individual clinical trials rarely provide definitive answers to a clinical research question—some commentators question whether the sample size calculation for an individual trial still matters. Others point out that small trials can still be potentially misleading.

Suggested Citation

  • Gordon H Guyatt & Edward J Mills & Diana Elbourne, 2008. "In the Era of Systematic Reviews, Does the Size of an Individual Trial Still Matter?," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-3, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:0050004
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050004
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050004&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alex Eble & Peter Boone & Diana Elbourne, 2017. "On Minimizing the Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Economics," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 31(3), pages 687-707.
    2. Rebecca M Turner & Sheila M Bird & Julian P T Higgins, 2013. "The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    3. Akinori Hisashige & Nobuyuki Shimizu & Yasuyuki Seto, 2021. "Cost-Effectiveness of Early Oral Feeding Following Total Gastrectomy," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(1), pages 1-64, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:0050004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.