Literature DB >> 25126223

Meta-analysis 101: what you want to know in the era of comparative effectiveness.

J B Jones1, Saul Blecker2, Nirav R Shah3.   

Abstract

In the era of "comparative effectiveness" research, each of the major stakeholders in healthcare-payors, patients, providers, and government-face a similar challenge. When making a decision about whether a new device, drug, or a diagnostic modality should be considered for use or coverage, what choices are best supported by the evidence? Medical evidence is defined by randomized controlled trials and by observational studies that vary greatly in their design, the accuracy of their analyses, and the relevance of their conclusions and recommendations. Hence, key decision makers increasingly rely on systematic reviews and meta-analyses to facilitate the interpretation and application of research evidence. Knowing how to evaluate meta-analyses and understanding the potential pitfalls of the method are crucial for those involved in designing drug benefits. The authors highlight the process, strengths, and weaknesses of meta-analysis and explain how to judge the value of the results.

Entities:  

Year:  2008        PMID: 25126223      PMCID: PMC4115319     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits        ISSN: 1942-2962


  17 in total

Review 1.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

Authors:  D Moher; D J Cook; S Eastwood; I Olkin; D Rennie; D F Stroup
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-11-27       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  What is the best evidence for making clinical decisions?

Authors:  N R Shah
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-12-27       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson; Jonathan J Deeks; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-06

4.  The "file drawer" phenomenon: suppressing clinical evidence.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-02-17       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jaime L Peters; Alex J Sutton; David R Jones; Keith R Abrams; Lesley Rushton
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-02-08       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis.

Authors:  Kaveh G Shojania; Margaret Sampson; Mohammed T Ansari; Jun Ji; Steve Doucette; David Moher
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Meta-analysis: principles and procedures.

Authors:  M Egger; G D Smith; A N Phillips
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-12-06

Review 8.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

Authors:  D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-04-19       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: the rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death.

Authors:  Jonathan J Shuster; Lynn S Jones; Daniel A Salmon
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 10.  Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions.

Authors:  S Hopewell; S McDonald; M Clarke; M Egger
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-04-18
View more
  1 in total

1.  Using meta-analyses for comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Vicki S Conn; Todd M Ruppar; Lorraine J Phillips; Jo-Ana D Chase
Journal:  Nurs Outlook       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.250

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.