Home › Research › How common it is
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
Rebecca DerSimonian, Nan M. Laird. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1986-09-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
This paper examines eight published reviews that each pooled results from several related clinical trials to evaluate treatment efficacy. The authors found that these reviews lacked consistent assessments of treatment effect homogeneity before combining the results. To address this, the study discusses a random effects approach for combining evidence from multiple experiments and suggests a simple noniterative procedure to characterize the distribution of treatment effects.
Key findings
- Eight published reviews each reporting results from several related trials lack consistent assessment of homogeneity of treatment effect before pooling.
- A random effects approach incorporates the heterogeneity of effects in the analysis of the overall treatment efficacy.
- The model can be extended to include relevant covariates which would reduce the heterogeneity and allow for more specific therapeutic recommendations.
- A simple noniterative procedure is suggested for characterizing the distribution of treatment effects in a series of studies.
Why it matters
Discusses meta-analysis in clinical trials.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Alzheimer's in numbers →
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on strength of evidence, so that was left out: it earned 49 of the 95 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Controlled Clinical Trials) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | Controlled Clinical Trials: journal h-index 126 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | — / 5 | No evidence rating recorded — left out of this score |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1986 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 7 / 7 | Cited 39,421 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 5 / 5 | 938.6 citations a year over 42 year(s) since 1986 |
| Impact for its field and year | 5 / 6 | Cited 23.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 4 / 4 | Cited 5,350 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Nan M. Laird: h-index 98 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 3802833) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 49 / 95 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 49 of the 95 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. M. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
Vancouver
DerSimonian R, Laird NM. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1986. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. PMID: 3802833.
BibTeX
@article{dersimonian1986-3802833,
author = {DerSimonian, Rebecca and Laird, Nan M.},
title = {{Meta-analysis in clinical trials}},
journal = {Controlled Clinical Trials},
year = {1986},
doi = {10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2},
pmid = {3802833},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2}
}