-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: OB-GYN List Triumphs Again From: Alicia M. Lapidus (alapi@pccp.com.ar) Sun Dec 13 13:20:12 1998 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Efrain Ramirez MD: "Re: OB-GYN List Triumphs Again" Previous message: Bernard Cristalli: "Re: OB-GYN List Triumphs Again" In reply to: Bernard Cristalli: "Re: OB-GYN List Triumphs Again" Next in thread: Clifford J. Goodman, Jr., M.D.: "Re: OB-GYN List Triumphs Again" If the trial is big enough and the effectiveness of the intervention is strong enough, no metaanalysis will say the contrary. If a single RCT is small and the effectiveness is weak, then another trials can show different results, and a metaanalysis can say the opposite. If that is the case and all the studies are similar in weight in the metaanalysis, you need another trial, larger than the previous, to let out all the probable bias that the little studies had. If the result of the metaanalysis is consistent with the bigger study, then that seems (today- I don't know tomorrow ;) ) to be the adequate thing to believe. Dra. Alicia M. Lapidus Buenos Aires Argentina alicia.lapidus@obgyn.net alapi@pccp.com.ar -----Mensaje original----- De: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] En nombre de Bernard Cristalli Enviado el: Domingo, Diciembre 13, 1998 05:05 PM Para: Multiple recipients of list Asunto: Re: OB-GYN List Triumphs Again So what would you believe? a single study or a metanalysis? What will you do? Use MgSO4 if one single study (even RCT & collaborative) says it's effective and still use it if a metanalysis (sum of RCTs) says it's not. I would rather believe several studies than one. Another solution is that nothing is sure and that no treatment is superior to the others. -- Luis Sanchez-Ramos a icrit: > At Sun, 13 Dec 1998, Bernard Cristalli wrote: > > >>In other words: a single study has only a value for itself. Several RCTs with the same design and with the same results make an evidence. A meta-analysis is supposed to be that.<< > > Dr. Cristalli; > > Your statement is not clear to me. Meta-analyses often do not agree > with a single large RCT. Both, meta-analyses and RCTs, are acceptable > forms of evidence-based medicine. Malcom felt that just because an > author published a RCT and a meta-analysis on the same subject, both had > to agree. That concept is totally false. > > Luis Sanchez-Ramos, M.D. -- Bernard Cristalli MD CNGOF AIHP - ACCA Paris - France http://www.obgyn.net/corresp/cristalli.htm http://www.cliniquedelessonne.fr/ Next message: Efrain Ramirez MD: "Re: OB-GYN List Triumphs Again" Previous message: Bernard Cristalli: "Re: OB-GYN List Triumphs Again" In reply to: Bernard Cristalli: "Re: OB-GYN List Triumphs Again" Next in thread: Clifford J. Goodman, Jr., M.D.: "Re: OB-GYN List Triumphs Again"

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 05:29:51 2009

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.