Prevalence of and factors associated with potentially redundant randomized controlled trials: a cross-sectional study

Qingping Yun,Minqing Lin,Yuanxi Jia,Yuxin Wang,Jiayue Zhang,Feng Sha,Zuyao Yang,Jinling Tang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111265

IF: 7.407

2024-01-24

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract:Objective To investigate the prevalence of meta-analyses containing potentially redundant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the factors associated with the presence of redundancy. Study Design and Setting This is a cross-sectional study, based on a random sample of references (n=4500) that were published during 2020 and 2021, indexed in PubMed, Embase, or the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and retrieved through comprehensive searches using terms about systematic reviews and meta-analysis. From each systematic review, one meta-analysis fulfilling all the following criteria, if available, was included in this study: (1) assessing the effect of the intervention on a primary outcome of the systematic review; (2) combining RCTs only. The primary outcome was prevalence of meta-analyses containing potentially redundant RCTs. Potentially redundant RCTs referred to the trials that started 1 year after the overall effect estimate from cumulative meta-analysis had been statistically robust, as determined by trial sequential analysis when appropriate. The number of potentially redundant trials (if any) in each eligible meta-analysis and the number of participants involved in those trials were documented and contrasted across groups. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to explore the factors associated with presence of potential redundancy. Results Of the 448 eligible meta-analyses, 57 (12.7%, 95% CI: 9.8%-16.2%) contained potentially redundant RCTs. When limited to the 333 low-heterogeneity meta-analyses, the prevalence was 17.1% (95% CI 13.5%-21.5%). The total number of potentially redundant RCTs was 295 (involving 85385 participants), accounting for 38.5% of the RCTs (and 30.3% of the participants) included in the 57 meta-analyses. In these meta-analyses, the median number of potentially redundant RCTs and the participants involved were 2 (range:1-50) and 352 (range:17-26997), respectively. Potentially redundant RCTs were more likely to be present in the meta-analyses evaluating pharmaceutical intervention (odds ratios [OR] 2.31, 95% CI 1.16-4.49), assessing efficacy outcomes (OR 7.25, 95%CI 0.85-61.87), containing more than 5 RCTs (OR 6.47, 95%CI 3.22-12.99), or with the earliest RCT reporting statistically significant effect estimate (OR 5.30, 95%CI 2.64-10.64). Conclusion This study found that 12.7%-17.1% of recently published meta-analyses contained potentially redundant RCTs, highlighting the importance of conducting or examining systematic reviews of existing evidence to justify new RCTs. More importantly, the study identified some scenarios in which redundancy was more likely to occur and thus has implications for trialists, funding agencies, ethics committees, and journal editors.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services