Determining the conclusiveness of a meta-analysis

Abstract

The pursuit of conclusive evidence related to an unanswered foreground (decision-making) question has been the driving factor behind multiple ongoing and planned randomized controlled trials as well as meta-analyses. However, a fundamental challenge lies in establishing robust methods for ascertaining whether a collection of synthesized trials has yielded a definitive answer to that foreground question through the process of meta-analysis. This article explores the evolution of methods that attempt to address this challenge. These methods have primarily focused on defining and measuring the sufficiency and stability of evidence within a meta-analytic context. Cumulative meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis are the tools currently used, but they both come with limitations and challenges. We further discuss methods aimed at evaluating the evolution of effects over time more directly, such as the recursive cumulative meta-analysis. The latter method can be considered a better alternative, as it serves to demonstrate whether there is a true underlying treatment effect to which the meta-analysis is converging. However, recursive cumulative meta-analysis falls short of a specific indicator that establishes whether convergence has been reached. We coin the term exit for a meta-analysis where convergence can be demonstrated. Developing methods to determine the exit status of a meta-analysis is the next priority in research synthesis methods, as it will indicate that the research journey has concluded on a particular foreground question with no expectation of a different result with the addition of future trials.