Literature DB >> 20084004

Meta-analysis as the core of evidence-based behavioral medicine: tools and pitfalls of a statistical approach.

Yvonne Nestoriuc1, Levente Kriston, Winfried Rief.   

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Meta-analyses have a significant impact on clinical decision-making. In behavioral medicine, they are regularly used to derive clinical practice guidelines. Owing to an increasing complexity of data integration methods used, their interpretation has become a challenge to clinicians and researchers. This review aims to provide an accessible introduction to recent advances in the methodology and reporting style of quantitative reviews within the field of behavioral medicine. RECENT
FINDINGS: Meta-analytical findings are sensitive to the precise methods used. State-of-the-art criteria for reporting of clinical trials and meta-analyses have been put forward. Further adaptations of these criteria result from recent meta-analyses of the placebo effect in clinical trials. There is a need to carefully develop and evaluate methods to deal with patient dropout and missing data. Useful methods to evaluate diagnostic test accuracy and meta-analytically evaluate direct and indirect treatment comparisons have recently been developed.
SUMMARY: In the interdisciplinary field of behavioral medicine, meta-analyses are applied to evaluate interventions, diagnostic instruments, and procedures, and to derive evidence-based treatment recommendations. Criteria to improve reporting quality and methods to control for potential biases have been adapted to meet the requirements of research in behavioral medicine today.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20084004     DOI: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e328336666b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Psychiatry        ISSN: 0951-7367            Impact factor:   4.741


  3 in total

1.  [Psychodynamic therapy of depression].

Authors:  F Leichsenring; S Rabung
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.214

2.  Quality Review in Psychiatry.

Authors:  Jeffrey P Reiss; Sarah Jarmain; Kamini Vasudev
Journal:  Can J Psychiatry       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 4.356

Review 3.  [Nocebo effects and negative suggestion in anesthesia].

Authors:  N Zech; M Seemann; E Hansen
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 1.041

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.