Abstract
To illustrate the pitfalls of using meta-analysis to combine estimates of effect in trials that are highly varied and have a high potential for bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool the results of 51 sham-controlled acupuncture trials of chronic pain published in English before 2008 and explored the heterogeneity using meta-regression. We repeated the process on a subset of these trials that used a visually credible non-penetrating sham device as control (N = 12). In both analyses there were high levels of heterogeneity and many studies were at risk from potential bias. The heterogeneity was not explained by meta-regression. Trials of interventions that have high potential for bias, such as many in the acupuncture literature, do not meet the assumptions of the statistical procedure that underlie random-effects meta-analysis. Even in the absence of bias, heterogeneity in meta-analyses is not accounted for by the CIs around the pooled estimate.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
