Key result
Cumulative meta-analyses of myocardial infarction trials showed that expert recommendations often delayed endorsing effective therapies or continued recommending ineffective ones.
Why the study?
Are there discrepancies between the results of cumulative meta-analyses of RCTs and the recommendations of clinical experts for myocardial infarction treatments?
Population
Randomized control trials of therapies for reducing the risk of total mortality in myocardial infarction and…
Comparison
Cumulative meta-analysis of randomized control… vs Recommendations of clinical experts in review…
Design
Meta-analysis
Authors
Loading...
Expert opinion lagged RCT evidence in MI; challenges reliance on narrative consensus over timely meta-analyses.
Meta-Analysis
Are there discrepancies between the results of cumulative meta-analyses of RCTs and the recommendations of clinical experts for myocardial infarction treatments?
Cumulative meta-analysis reveals significant delays and discrepancies between accumulating RCT evidence and expert recommendations for myocardial infarction treatments.
Elliott M. Antman (1992) conducted a meta-analysis in Myocardial infarction. Various treatments for myocardial infarction vs. Recommendations of clinical experts was evaluated on Temporal relationship between accumulating RCT data and clinical expert recommendations. Cumulative meta-analyses of myocardial infarction trials showed that expert recommendations often delayed endorsing effective therapies or continued recommending ineffective ones.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: