Literature DB >> 10153164

Interpreting and evaluating meta-analysis.

J A Hall1, R Rosenthal.   

Abstract

This article offers some guidelines for interpreting and evaluating meta-analytic reviews of research. The fundamental goals of meta-analysis are to combine results across studies to yield an overall estimate of effect and to compare effects between studies in order to understand moderating factors. Suggestions are made for what readers should look for in a meta-analysis, and a discussion is provided of several issues that are not often explicitly addressed: choice of unit of analysis, fixed versus random effects, the meaning of heterogeneity, determination of when contrasts are appropriate, and the choice of measure of central tendency. We recommend that readers adopt a skeptical attitude about the results of meta-analysis, particularly when only complex analyses are reported.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 10153164     DOI: 10.1177/016327879501800404

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eval Health Prof        ISSN: 0163-2787            Impact factor:   2.651


  6 in total

Review 1.  Relations among posttraumatic stress disorder, comorbid major depression, and HPA function: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Matthew C Morris; Bruce E Compas; Judy Garber
Journal:  Clin Psychol Rev       Date:  2012-02-10

2.  Self-efficacy and smoking cessation: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chad J Gwaltney; Jane Metrik; Christopher W Kahler; Saul Shiffman
Journal:  Psychol Addict Behav       Date:  2009-03

Review 3.  Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysregulation in depressed children and adolescents: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nestor L Lopez-Duran; Maria Kovacs; Charles J George
Journal:  Psychoneuroendocrinology       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 4.905

4.  Consensus-based recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews.

Authors:  Joel J Gagnier; Hal Morgenstern; Doug G Altman; Jesse Berlin; Stephanie Chang; Peter McCulloch; Xin Sun; David Moher
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  The overall impact of emotional intelligence on nursing students and nursing.

Authors:  Lori Michelangelo
Journal:  Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2015 Apr-Jun

Review 6.  Investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews: a methodologic review of guidance in the literature.

Authors:  Joel J Gagnier; David Moher; Heather Boon; Joseph Beyene; Claire Bombardier
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-07-30       Impact factor: 4.615

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.