Meta-analysis: Its strengths and limitations.

  title={Meta-analysis: Its strengths and limitations.},
  author={Esteban Walker and Adrian V. Hern{\'a}ndez and Michael W. Kattan},
  journal={Cleveland Clinic journal of medicine},
  volume={75 6},
Nowadays, doctors face an overwhelming amount of information, even in narrow areas of interest. In response, reviews designed to summarize the large volumes of information are frequently published. When a review is done systematically, following certain criteria, and the results are pooled and analyzed quantitatively, it is called a meta-analysis. A well-designed meta-analysis can provide valuable information for researchers, policymakers, and clinicians. However, there are many critical… 

Figures from this paper

An overview of meta-analysis for clinicians

  • Y. Lee
  • Medicine
    The Korean journal of internal medicine
  • 2018
This review introduces the basic concepts, steps, advantages, and caveats of meta-analysis, to help clinicians understand it in clinical practice and research.

The power of meta-analysis: a challenge for evidence-based medicine

This paper argues that standard measures used to quantify meta-analytical heterogeneity should be revised in such a way to take into account the statistical power of the individual studies, and proposes some new measures of heterogeneity that are applied to re-assess concrete case-studies from clinical research.

Meta-analysis: pitfalls and hints

The principal steps (from writing a prospective protocol of analysis to results’ interpretation) are explored in order to minimize the risk of conducting a mediocre meta-analysis and to support researchers to accurately evaluate the published findings.

Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses in the New Age of Transparency

  • P. Honig
  • Medicine, Political Science
    Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics
  • 2010
Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses are useful in integrating large amounts of data to inform medical practice, and it is likely that the already large number of published meta‐analyses will

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Sometimes Bigger Is Indeed Better

  • T. Vetter
  • Psychology, Medicine
    Anesthesia and analgesia
  • 2019
The present basic statistical tutorial thus focuses on the fundamentals of a systematic review and meta-analysis, against the backdrop of practicing evidence-based medicine.

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

Why and when multicenter studies along with meta-analyses might not be the best options, and three different scenarios are discussed.

Interpreting trial sequential analysis

TSA is a statistical approach that applies techniques developed for repeated statistical testing in RCTs to meta-analysis by treatingMeta-analysis updates as similar to interim analyses in R CTs, and identifies a substantial number of metaanalyses that potentially reported false-positive results and had an insufficient sample size.

Uncertainty in Meta-Analysis: Bridging the Divide Between Ideal and Available Extracted Data

The Uncertain Reading-Estimated Events model is proposed to construct each study's contribution to the meta-analysis separately using the data available for extraction to accommodate multiple patterns of missingness in the standard deviations.

The most critical question when reading a meta-analysis report: Is it comparing apples with apples or apples with oranges?

How to select studies for a meta-analysis and the results of a re-analysis of the van Vark data show that the studies to be included in meta-analyses, particularly comparing ACEIs and ARBs, should be chosen carefully.

The Impact of Meta-analyses on Medical Decisions.

Meta-analyses concerning topics ripe with controversy – PGS, GnRH agonists vs. GnRH antagonists, endometrial injury, androgen therapy for women with poor ovarian response, etc – are frequently published and add to the uncertainty physicians are faced with.



The promise and problems of meta-analysis.

  • J. Bailar
  • Medicine
    The New England journal of medicine
  • 1997
This issue of the Journal, LeLorier et al.1 compare the findings of 12 large randomized, controlled trials with the results of meta-analyses of the same problems.

Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity

It is found that trim and fill may spuriously adjust for non-existent bias if (i) the variability among studies causes some precisely estimated studies to have effects far from the global mean or (ii) an inverse relationship between treatment efficacy and sample size is introduced by the studies' a priori power calculations.

Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.

  • C. Naylor
  • Psychology
    The Journal of rheumatology
  • 1989
This book is very referred for you because it gives not only the experience but also lesson, it is about this book that will give wellness for all people from many societies.

Improving the Quality of Reports of Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: The QUOROM Statement

This report hopes this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.

Statistics in medicine--reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials.

The analysis of subgroups is often used as a way to glean additional information from data sets. The strengths and weaknesses of this approach and new Journal policies concerning the reporting of

Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials.

The outcomes of the 12 large randomized, controlled trials that were studied were not predicted accurately 35 percent of the time by the meta-analyses published previously on the same topics.

The role of meta-analysis in the regulatory process for foods, drugs, and devices.

Overall, meta-analysis adds evidence through the synthesis study findings and permits examination of how treatment effects vary across of subgroups, such as age and sex, and across study settings.

Fixed vs random effects meta‐analysis in rare event studies: The Rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death

It will be demonstrated that a common practice of testing for homogeneity of effect size, and acting upon the inference to decide between fixed vs random effects, can lead to potentially misleading results.

Meta-Analysis in Medicine and Health Policy

A Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Randomized Mega-Trials for the Choice of Thrombolytic Agents in Acute Myocardial Infarction and the Relationship between Duration of Estrogen Exposure and Occurrence of Endometrial Cancer.