ABSTRACT
Importance Mega-trials can provide large-scale evidence on important questions.
Objective To explore how the results of mega-trails compare to the meta-analysis results of trials with smaller sample sizes.
Data Sources Clinicaltrials.gov was searched for mega-trials until 10.01.2023. PubMed was searched until June 2023 for meta-analyses incorporating the results of the eligible mega-trials.
Study Selection Mega-trials were eligible if they were non-cluster non-vaccine randomized control trials (RCTs); had a sample size over 10,000; and had a peer-reviewed meta-analysis publication presenting results for the primary outcome of the mega-trials and/or all-cause mortality.
Data Extraction and Synthesis For each selected meta-analysis, we extracted results of smaller trials and mega-trials included in the summary effect estimate, and combined them separately using random effects. These estimates were used to calculate the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) between mega-trials and smaller trials in each meta-analysis. Next, the ROR were combined using random-effects. Risk of bias was extracted for each trial included in our analyses (or when not available, assessed only for mega-trials).
Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes were the summary ROR for the primary outcome and all-cause mortality between mega-trials and smaller trials. Sensitivity analyses were performed with respect to the time of publishing, masking, weight, type of intervention, and specialty.
Results Of 120 mega-trials identified, 39 (33%) had significant benefits for the primary outcome and 18 (15%) had significant benefits for all-cause mortality for the intervention. In 35 comparisons of primary outcomes (including 85 point estimates from 69 unique mega-trials and 272 point estimatesfrom smaller trials) and 26 comparisons of all-cause mortality (including 70 point estimates from 65 unique mega-trials and 267 point estimates from smaller trials), ROR was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.04) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.04), respectively. For the primary outcomes, smaller trials published before the mega-trials had more favorable results than the mega-trials (ROR 1.05, 95% CI, 1.01-1.10), and than the subsequent smaller trials (ROR 0.91, 95% CI, 0.85-0.96).
Conclusions and Relevance Meta-analyses of smaller studies show in general comparable results with mega-trials, but smaller trials published before the mega-trials give more favorable results than the mega-trials.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest: None
Data sharing: All data are available from the authors upon request
Funding: The work of John Ioannidis is supported by an unrestricted gift from Sue and Bob O’Donnell to Stanford University. The work of Lum Kastrati is supported by Swiss Government Scholarship for Excellence and funding from University of Bern and Insel Spital.
Data Availability
All data in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
