A recent meta-analysis from the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration recommended that antilatelet treatment either alone or, for greater effect, in addition to other proved forms of thromboprophylaxis should be considered for patients at high risk of thromboembolism. This paper argues that the current (1) A few weeks of antiplatelet treatment roughly halved the risk both of deep vein thrombosis and of pulmonary embolism in a wide range of surgical patients (and the limited evidence in immobilised medical patients was also encouraging).(2) The absolute benefits seemed to be greater for those at higher risk-for example, those undergoing orthopaedic surgery.(3) Antiplatelet treatment can be conveniently continued after discharge from hospital (in contrast with many other forms of prophylaxis) for as long as the risk ofthromboembolism remains substantial.(4) Antiplatelet treatment alone or, for greater effect, in addition to other proved forms of prophylaxis should be considered for patients at high risk of thromboembolism.Our aim is to encourage constructive debate about these conclusions, taking into account the limitations of a meta-analysis. It is well established that a large number of issues concerning meta-analysis relate to difficulties in the evaluation of clinical trials particularly factors such as limited information on individual studies, "combinability," biases, confounders and effect modifiers, heterogeneity of treatment effects, effect of size (small versus large studies), and the differential qualities of studies.' This recent metaanalysis has also raised other important issues which need to be resolved, including the consideration of a risk-benefit assessment, the interpretation of the results, and the general recommendations which have been made. We consider that the conclusions of the antiplatelet trialists cannot be justified after taking into account many of these factors that can affect the results of a meta-analysis.
Methodology ofmeta-analysisMeta-analysis has been defined as "a statistical analysis which combines or integrates the results of several independent clinical trials considered by the analyst to be 'combinable.'"'3 For meta-analysis to be relevant to clinical decision making the individual studies must have enough in common for their combined evidence to be meaningfully interpreted.' Combinability depends on the study design, the treatments used, and the treatment effects. The last can be assessed by statistical testing for heterogeneity. Methodological problems with the studies included in the recent meta-analysis are those of design and heterogeneity of treatments and outcomes.The