Table 1

Decisions of the 8 reviewers based on the 6 systematic reviews with meta-analyses presented to them.

    # RCTS

1

1–3

1–5

1–10

1–20

1–23

N

111

415

597

3685

63047

69505

Fixed OR

N/a

0.40 (0.19–0.83)

0.40 (0.28–0.61)

0.64 (0.52–0.79)

1.02 (0.96–1.08)

1.01 (0.96–1.07)

Rand OR

N/a

0.40 (0.18–0.86)

0.38 (0.21–0.66)

0.66 (0.53–0.81)

0.65 (0.48–0.87)

0.75 (0.61–0.92)

I2

N/a

0%

0%

21%

59%

59%

I believe magnesium has now been shown to be beneficial for patients during the post-MI period

(C)

Disagree

Unsure

Unsure

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

(C)

Strongly Disagree

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

(P)

Strongly Disagree

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

(P)

Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Agree

(P)

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Agree

(P)

Unsure

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

(NP)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

(N)

Unsure

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

I believe magnesium will eventually be shown to be beneficial for patients during the post-MI period

(C)

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

Unsure

Disagree

(C)

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

(P)

Unsure

Agree

Agree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Agree

(P)

Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Agree

(P)

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Agree

(P)

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

(NP)

Unsure

Unsure

Unsure

Agree

Unsure

Disagree

(N)

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

I recommend that magnesium therapy be used in patients during the post-MI period

(C)

No

No

No

No

No

No

(C)

No

No

No

No

No

No

(P)

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(P)

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(P)

No

No

No

No

No

No

(P)

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(NP)

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

(N)

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


C: cardiologist, P: other physician, NP: non-practicing physician, N: non-physician

Each column contains the answers from different meta-analyses based on the number of randomized trials provided (top row). The total number of subjects in each of the meta-analyses is shown in the second row; the overall fixed effects odds ratio (OR) and random effects OR shown to the reviewers are given in rows 3 and 4 (the first trial only examined infarct size and there is no OR for mortality); and the I2 value for heterogeneity is shown in row 5. There were three errors that were discovered after some reviewers had answered questions. The differences in the overall effect estimates were relatively minor and would not be expected to alter the responses by our reviewers. To remain transparent, we provide the numbers provided to the reviewers in this table, and the corrected numbers in Figure 1. The results for each question asked are shown in the subsequent rows. The choices for the first two questions were strongly disagree to strongly agree, and the choices for the third question were yes or no. In addition to the range of interpretations for any one meta-analysis, reviewer 3 moved from unsure to strongly disagree over the 6 meta-analyses for the second question whereas reviewer 7 moved in the opposite direction from strongly disagree to agree.

Shrier et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2008 8:19   doi:10.1186/1472-6947-8-19

Open Data