MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993540519 · doi:10.1001/jama.285.4.444

Safety Outcomes in Meta-analyses of Phase 2 vs Phase 3 Randomized Trials

2001· review· en· W1993540519 on OpenAlexaff
John W. Eikelboom, Shamir R Mehta, Janice Pogue, Salim Yusuf

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialMyocardial infarctionMeta-analysisOdds ratioAdverse effectThrombolysisConfidence intervalInternal medicineClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Recent studies have reported disagreement between meta-analysis of small trials and subsequent large trials addressing the same question. However, disagreement for uncommon but serious adverse safety outcomes has not been examined. OBJECTIVE: To explore disagreement for serious adverse safety (intracranial hemorrhage [ICH]) and efficacy outcomes between meta-analysis of phase 2 (small) vs meta-analysis of phase 3 (large) randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of bolus thrombolytic therapy with infusion for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials) between January 1980 and December 1999 using the search terms thrombolysis, thrombolytic therapy, and myocardial infarction; conference proceedings; and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Fifteen randomized trials comparing thrombolytic agents administered by bolus injection with standard infusion therapy in patients with AMI. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on ICH, other causes of stroke, total mortality, and reinfarction were independently extracted from each study by 2 observers. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analysis of 9 phase 2 trials (n = 3956) revealed a lower risk of ICH with bolus thrombolytic therapy (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-1.01), which was not statistically significant. Meta-analysis of 6 phase 3 trials (n = 62 673) indicated a significant increase in risk of ICH (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.49). These results were significantly different (P =.01). There was no disagreement for efficacy outcomes. Phase 2 trials included younger and heavier patients with lower baseline blood pressures, and were more often open-label. Subgroup analyses suggested that each of these factors was associated with a lower estimate of risk of ICH with bolus agents. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that when therapeutic interventions are associated with a potential for uncommon but serious adverse safety outcomes, there may be differences between small phase 2 and large phase 3 trials that result in their disagreement for safety but not necessarily efficacy outcomes. Further investigation of the frequency and causes of disagreement between small and large trials for safety outcomes is warranted.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.313
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.627
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3130.627
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.071
Bibliometrics0.0170.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.326
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207