American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 200, Issue 5 , Pages 484.e1-484.e5, May 2009

Metaanalysis vs large clinical trials: which should guide our management?

  • Christina M. Scifres, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
    • ,
  • Jay D. Iams, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
    • ,
  • Mark Klebanoff, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Division of Epidemiology, Statistics and Prevention Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
    • ,
  • George A. Macones, MD, MSCE

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO

Received 10 May 2008; received in revised form 10 August 2008; accepted 26 September 2008. published online 25 November 2008.

Large, randomized clinical trials have long been considered the gold standard to guide clinical care. Metaanalysis is a type of analysis in which results of a number of randomized clinical trials are combined and a summary measure of effect for a given treatment is ascertained. The clinician in practice often is faced with a dilemma regarding the type of evidence that should be used to guide clinical practice; for many clinical problems, there are both randomized controlled trials and metaanalyses available. The cases of calcium and aspirin therapy for the prevention of preeclampsia afford an opportunity to explore the benefits and limitations of each type of study to guide clinical practice. We conclude that, when available, large randomized clinical trials should be used to guide clinical practice.

Key words: metaanalysis, randomized clinical trial

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

 Authorship and contribution to the manuscript is limited to the 4 authors indicated. There was no outside funding or technical assistance with the production of this article.

 Cite this article as: Scifres CM, Iams JD, Klebanoff M, Macones GA. Metaanalysis vs large clinical trials: which should guide our management? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:484.e1-484.e5.

 Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0002-9378(08)01098-3

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.09.873

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 200, Issue 5 , Pages 484.e1-484.e5, May 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution