Literature DB >> 8692168

Meta-analysis: an update.

H S Sacks1, D Reitman, D Pagano, B Kupelnick.   

Abstract

A fairly new type of research, termed meta-analysis, attempts to analyze and combine the results of previous reports. In 1992 we updated our 1987 survey of 86 meta-analyses of randomized control trial reports in the english language literature with an additional 78. We evaluated the quality of these meta-analyses using a scoring method that lists 23 items in six major areas: study design, combinability, control of bias, statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and application of results. Of the 23 individual items, the mean number satisfactorily addressed was 7.63 +/- 2.84 (mean +/- S.D.) for 40 papers published from 1955 through 1982, 6.80 +/- 3.86 for 66 papers published from 1983 through 1986, and 11.91 +/- 4.79 for 58 papers published from 1987 through 1990 (F = 31.3, p < .001). We noted that methodology has definitely improved since our first survey of meta-analyses, but an urgent need still exists for a better search of the literature, quality evaluation of trials, and a synthesis of the results. Recently, meta-analysis has expanded to cover non-randomized studies, including evaluation of diagnostic tests and pooling of epidemiologic studies. There is growing concern for standards, and several methodologic issues remain unresolved.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8692168

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mt Sinai J Med        ISSN: 0027-2507


  18 in total

1.  Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation.

Authors:  A R Jadad; M Moher; G P Browman; L Booker; C Sigouin; M Fuentes; R Stevens
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-02-26

2.  Clinical decision support systems for the practice of evidence-based medicine.

Authors:  I Sim; P Gorman; R A Greenes; R B Haynes; B Kaplan; H Lehmann; P C Tang
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of published studies: an overview and best practices.

Authors:  Jayawant N Mandrekar; Sumithra J Mandrekar
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 15.609

4.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  Open Med       Date:  2009-07-21

5.  Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.

Authors:  Matthew J Page; Joanne E McKenzie; Jamie Kirkham; Kerry Dwan; Sharon Kramer; Sally Green; Andrew Forbes
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-10-01

6.  Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews?

Authors:  Beverley Shea; Maarten Boers; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Candyce Hamel; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2006-06-13       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence.

Authors:  Andrew D Oxman; Holger J Schünemann; Atle Fretheim
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2006-12-05

Review 8.  The quality of meta-analyses of genetic association studies: a review with recommendations.

Authors:  Cosetta Minelli; John R Thompson; Keith R Abrams; Ammarin Thakkinstian; John Attia
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-11-09       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-07-21

10.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.