The bigger, the better? When multicenter clinical trials and meta-analyses do not work

Soroush Seifirad, Lance Alquran

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

9 Scopus citations


Courtesy of the development of the Internet, bursts of information technology, and globalization, huge multicenter studies along with meta-analyses have been introduced to the medical sciences society. Meta-analyses and multicenter studies revolutionized modern medicine and drug development, and empowered evidence based medicine by providing extremely high levels of evidence. Nevertheless, there are occasions that while results of local multi/single center studies showed efficacy of a new treatment, larger multicenter studies or meta-analyses failed to show efficacy, and vice versa. Generally, bigger studies are more powerful and we rely on their results in clinical decision making. Nevertheless, we should keep in mind that in certain circumstances, single center studies are of great importance, and are preferred to multicenter studies and meta-analyses. In order to have a better understanding of why and when multicenter studies along with meta-analyses might not be the best options, we have discussed three different scenarios.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)321-326
Number of pages6
JournalCurrent Medical Research and Opinion
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2021
Externally publishedYes


  • Clinical trial
  • biostatistics
  • clinical decision making
  • metanalysis
  • personalized medicine
  • public health
  • research methodology


Dive into the research topics of 'The bigger, the better? When multicenter clinical trials and meta-analyses do not work'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this