OBJECTIVE: To systematically review methods for systematic review/meta-analysis in order to identify the different methodological and statistical methods that have been proposed. A summary of the main findings is presented here, with emphasis given to health services research topics. METHODS: A thorough systematic search for methodological papers was carried out using a variety of methods, including the use of electronic databases. Approximately 1000 potentially relevant references were identified, a number of them from education, psychology and sociology. RESULTS: After briefly reviewing the procedural methods required to carry out a review, and the basic statistical methods used to combine study estimates, less established methods are discussed. These include methods for dealing with publication bias, meta-regression, meta-analysis of individual patient data, the synthesis of non-randomized evidence alone and in combination with randomized studies. Bayesian modelling and economic evaluation through meta-analysis. Recommendations for meta-analytical practice are given; these are either distilled from previous guidelines, or constructed where there appears to be a broad consensus across the literature. CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped that this review will provide a consistent and comprehensive, but concise, description of the methods available for synthesizing evidence, that it will promote better quality reviews of the results of health services research and identify specific areas which require methodological development.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review methods for systematic review/meta-analysis in order to identify the different methodological and statistical methods that have been proposed. A summary of the main findings is presented here, with emphasis given to health services research topics. METHODS: A thorough systematic search for methodological papers was carried out using a variety of methods, including the use of electronic databases. Approximately 1000 potentially relevant references were identified, a number of them from education, psychology and sociology. RESULTS: After briefly reviewing the procedural methods required to carry out a review, and the basic statistical methods used to combine study estimates, less established methods are discussed. These include methods for dealing with publication bias, meta-regression, meta-analysis of individual patient data, the synthesis of non-randomized evidence alone and in combination with randomized studies. Bayesian modelling and economic evaluation through meta-analysis. Recommendations for meta-analytical practice are given; these are either distilled from previous guidelines, or constructed where there appears to be a broad consensus across the literature. CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped that this review will provide a consistent and comprehensive, but concise, description of the methods available for synthesizing evidence, that it will promote better quality reviews of the results of health services research and identify specific areas which require methodological development.
Authors: Dominik D Alexander; Michael A Kelsh; Pamela J Mink; Jeffrey H Mandel; Rupa Basu; Michal Weingart Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2007-05-10 Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: Emily Goswami; Valerie Craven; David L Dahlstrom; Dominik Alexander; Fionna Mowat Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 3.390