Is meta-analysis of RCTs assessing the efficacy of interventions a reliable source of evidence for therapeutic decisions?

  title={Is meta-analysis of RCTs assessing the efficacy of interventions a reliable source of evidence for therapeutic decisions?},
  author={Mariusz Maziarz},
  journal={Studies in history and philosophy of science},
  • Mariusz Maziarz
  • Published 15 December 2021
  • Psychology
  • Studies in history and philosophy of science
2 Citations

Dispositions and Causality Assessment in Pharmacovigilance: Proposing the Dx3 Approach for Assessing Causality with Small Data Sets

The Dx3 approach is designed to qualitatively evaluate three types of dispositions when assessing whether a particular medicine has or could have caused a certain adverse event and can support the inclusion of the single ICSR as a valid and valuable form of evidence.

COVID‐19: The rise of a literature pandemic

The aim of the present study is to document the number of articles published in the 2-year period since the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic and compare it with the relevant literature in other key topics of public health.



Is meta-analysis the platinum standard of evidence?

  • J. Stegenga
  • Biology
    Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences
  • 2011

In defense of meta-analysis

This paper first examines Stegenga’s argument that meta-analysis requires multiple decisions and thus fails to provide an objective ground for medical decision making, and examines three arguments from social epistemologists that contend thatMeta-analyses are systematically biased in ways not appreciated by standard epistemology.

How to generalize efficacy results of randomized trials: recommendations based on a systematic review of possible approaches.

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify methods to decide whether to generalize the results from RCTs to patients who were not represented in these trials, and proposed this last approach: focusing on R CTs unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.

Random-effects meta-analysis: the number of studies matters

The overall recommendation is to avoid the DerSimonian and Laird method when the number of meta-analysis studies is modest and prefer a more comprehensive procedure that compares alternative inferential approaches.

Comparison of aggregate and individual participant data approaches to meta-analysis of randomised trials: An observational study

It is found that HRs from published AD were most likely to agree with those from IPD when the information size was large, and guidance is provided for determining systematically when standard AD meta-analysis will likely generate robust clinical conclusions, and when the IPD approach will add considerable value.

Until RCT proven? On the asymmetry of evidence requirements for risk assessment.

  • B. Osimani
  • Philosophy
    Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
  • 2013
The thesis is that different epistemologies confer different methodological choices, which in turn bring about relevant practical implications such as the decision to restrict or suspend drug use rather than leaving it on the market, and it is worth considering the criteria underlying the evidence constraints because they may be ill suited to the purpose for which they are used.

Random-Effects Meta-analysis of Inconsistent Effects: A Time for Change

The decision to calculate a summary estimate in a meta-analysis should be based on clinical judgment, the number of studies, and the degree of variation among studies, as well as on a random-effects model that incorporates study-to-study variability beyond what would be expected by chance.

Evidence-based medicine must be ...

It is argued that a justification for EBM's hierarchy of evidence can be provided and the hierarchy should be viewed as a hierarchy of comparative internal validity.