Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Articles & Searches Download to citation manager Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Articles by Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G. Search for Related Content PubMed Citation Articles by Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G. Other Research Techniques

Comparison of Large Versus Smaller Randomized Trials for Mental Health-Related Interventions

OBJECTIVE: The extent of disagreement between large and smaller randomized, controlled trials on mental health issues is unknown. The authors aimed to compare the results of large versus smaller trials on mental health-related interventions. METHOD: The authors screened 161 Cochrane and 254 Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness systematic reviews on mental health-related interventions. They identified 16 meta-analyses with at least one "large" randomized trial with sample size >800 and at least one "smaller" trial. Effect sizes were calculated separately for large and smaller trials. Heterogeneity was assessed between all studies, within each group (large and smaller studies), and between large and smaller studies. RESULTS: Significant between-study heterogeneity was seen in five meta-analyses. By random-effects calculations, the results of large and smaller trials differed beyond chance in four meta-analyses (25%). In three of these disagreements (effect of day care on IQ, discontinuation of antidepressants, risperidone versus typical antipsychotics for schizophrenia), the smaller trials showed greater effect sizes than the large trials. The inverse was seen in one case (olanzapine versus typical antipsychotics for schizophrenia). With fixed-effects models, disagreements beyond chance occurred in five cases (31%). In four meta-analyses, the effect size differed over twofold between large and smaller trials. Various quality and design parameters were identified as potential explanations for some disagreements. CONCLUSIONS: Large trials are uncommon in mental health. Their results are usually comparable with the results of smaller studies, but major disagreements do occur. Both large and smaller trials should be scrutinized as they offer a continuum of randomized evidence.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Hodgson, C. Bushe, and R. Hunter Measurement of long-term outcomes in observational and randomised controlled trials The British Journal of Psychiatry, August 1, 2007; 191(50): s78 - s84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Yamaoka and T. Tango Efficacy of Lifestyle Education to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Diabetes Care, November 1, 2005; 28(11): 2780 - 2786. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2005 American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us