Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews

被引:2201
作者
Lau, J [1 ]
Ioannidis, JPA [1 ]
Schmid, CH [1 ]
机构
[1] TUFTS UNIV, SCH MED, BOSTON, MA 02111 USA
关键词
D O I
10.7326/0003-4819-127-9-199711010-00008
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
The final common pathway for most systematic reviews is a statistical summary of the data, or meta-analysis. The complex methods used in meta-analyses should always be complemented by clinical acumen and common sense in designing the protocol of a systematic review, deciding which data can be combined, and determining whether data should be combined. Both continuous and binary data can be pooled. Most meta-analyses summarize data from randomized trials, but other applications, such as the evaluation of diagnostic test performance and observational studies, have also been developed. The statistical methods of meta-analysis aim at evaluating the diversity (heterogeneity) among the results of different studies, exploring and explaining observed heterogeneity, and estimating a common pooled effect with increased precision. Fixed-effects models assume that an intervention has a single true effect, whereas random-effects models assume that an effect may vary across studies. Meta-regression analyses, by using each study rather than each patient as a unit of observation, can help to evaluate the effect of individual variables on the magnitude of an observed effect and thus may sometimes explain why study results differ. It is also important to assess the robustness of conclusions through sensitivity analyses and a formal evaluation of potential sources of bias, including publication bias and the effect of the quality of the studies on the observed effect.
引用
收藏
页码:820 / 826
页数:7
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]  
Altman DG, 1996, BRIT MED J, V313, P570
[2]  
[Anonymous], HDB RES SYNTHESIS
[3]   Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials - The CONSORT statement [J].
Begg, C ;
Cho, M ;
Eastwood, S ;
Horton, R ;
Moher, D ;
Olkin, I ;
Pitkin, R ;
Rennie, D ;
Schulz, KF ;
Simel, D ;
Stroup, DF .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (08) :637-639
[4]   OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF A BANK CORRELATION TEST FOR PUBLICATION BIAS [J].
BEGG, CB ;
MAZUMDAR, M .
BIOMETRICS, 1994, 50 (04) :1088-1101
[5]   A COMPARISON OF STATISTICAL-METHODS FOR COMBINING EVENT RATES FROM CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
BERLIN, JA ;
LAIRD, NM ;
SACKS, HS ;
CHALMERS, TC .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1989, 8 (02) :141-151
[6]  
BERLIN JA, 1994, ONLINE J CURR C 0604
[7]   DISCORDANCE BETWEEN METAANALYSES AND LARGE-SCALE RANDOMIZED, CONTROLLED TRIALS - EXAMPLES FROM THE MANAGEMENT OF ACUTE MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION [J].
BORZAK, S ;
RIDKER, PM .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1995, 123 (11) :873-877
[8]   Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials - How do their results compare? [J].
Cappelleri, JC ;
Ioannidis, JPA ;
Schmid, CH ;
deFerranti, SD ;
Aubert, M ;
Chalmers, TC ;
Lau, J .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (16) :1332-1338
[9]   A METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF A RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL [J].
CHALMERS, TC ;
SMITH, H ;
BLACKBURN, B ;
SILVERMAN, B ;
SCHROEDER, B ;
REITMAN, D ;
AMBROZ, A .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1981, 2 (01) :31-49
[10]   STRESS-ULCER PROPHYLAXIS IN THE CRITICALLY ILL - A METAANALYSIS [J].
COOK, DJ ;
WITT, LG ;
COOK, RJ ;
GUYATT, GH .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1991, 91 (05) :519-527