Literature DB >> 10714131

[Meta-analysis as a tool for evaluation of evidence].

A Koch1, S Ziegler.   

Abstract

In these days, more than one clinical trial is mostly performed to evaluate a new treatment or therapeutic intervention. This necessitates a combined evaluation of their results. An integration of evidence from several trials is also helpful to determine the actual knowledge. These are the main goals of meta-analyses. Since the end of the 80s meta-analyses are widely used in clinical research. At the beginning of a meta-analysis, a protocol has to be developed. Similar to a protocol of a clinical trial, the inclusion and exclusion criteria for trials, the hypotheses and the planned analyses have to be fixed. After a careful localization of trials, a combined statistical analysis is performed. An investigation of heterogeneity, i.e., differences between study results, is indispensable. During the last years, the tool meta-analysis has been criticized. The criticism mainly results from poorly conducted meta-analyses which generated results without prespecifying hypotheses or which merely combined study results. Well-planned meta-analyses, on the contrary, have an increasing influence in clinical research.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10714131     DOI: 10.1007/bf03044996

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)        ISSN: 0723-5003


  15 in total

1.  Low molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in thrombosis prophylaxis after major surgical intervention: update of previous meta-analyses.

Authors:  A Koch; S Bouges; S Ziegler; H Dinkel; J P Daures; N Victor
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  A Monte Carlo investigation of homogeneity tests of the odds ratio under various sample size configurations.

Authors:  M P Jones; T W O'Gorman; J H Lemke; R F Woolson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Meta-analysis of clinical trials: summary of an international conference.

Authors:  J P Boissel; H S Sacks; A Leizorovicz; J Blanchard; E Panak; J C Peyrieux
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.953

4.  Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists.

Authors:  D Moher; A R Jadad; G Nichol; M Penman; P Tugwell; S Walsh
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1995-02

Review 5.  Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews.

Authors:  K Dickersin; R Scherer; C Lefebvre
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-11-12

6.  Misleading meta-analysis.

Authors:  M Egger; G D Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-03-25

Review 7.  Controversies in meta-analysis: the case of the trials of serum cholesterol reduction.

Authors:  S G Thompson
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 3.021

8.  Reporting on methods in clinical trials.

Authors:  R DerSimonian; L J Charette; B McPeek; F Mosteller
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1982-06-03       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Low molecular weight versus standard heparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism after major abdominal surgery. The Thromboprophylaxis Collaborative Group.

Authors:  V V Kakkar; A T Cohen; R A Edmonson; M J Phillips; D J Cooper; S K Das; K T Maher; R M Sanderson; V P Ward; S Kakkar
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-01-30       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial.

Authors:  T C Chalmers; H Smith; B Blackburn; B Silverman; B Schroeder; D Reitman; A Ambroz
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1981-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.