AuthorSteve ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Meta-analysis has become a standard technique in evidence-based medicine for combining information from different studies testing the efficacy of similar.A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies. 2 For the conduct of meta-analysis, the. Other references that reviewers may find useful to this end include the diagnostic test accuracy section of the Cochrane Handbook, 5 ‘Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy’ by Leeflang, 4 and ‘Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests’ by Deeks.
Comprehensive Meta Analysis For Screening Tests How To Search ForFor example, Wanous and colleagues examined four pairs of meta-analyses on the four topics of (a) job performance and satisfaction relationship, (b) realistic job previews, (c) correlates of role conflict and ambiguity, and (d) the job satisfaction and absenteeism relationship, and illustrated how various judgement calls made by the researchers produced different results. Judgment calls made in completing a meta-analysis may affect the results. However, in performing a meta-analysis, an investigator must make choices which can affect the results, including deciding how to search for studies, selecting studies based on a set of objective criteria, dealing with incomplete data, analyzing the data, and accounting for or choosing not to account for publication bias. For more than a decade, meta-analysis of diagnostic tests has been an.Not only can meta-analyses provide an estimate of the unknown common truth, it also has the capacity to contrast results from different studies and identify patterns among study results, sources of disagreement among those results, or other interesting relationships that may come to light with multiple studies. Accuracy and Clinical Utility of Comprehensive Dysphagia Screening Assessments in Acute Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisTo read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the. The aim then is to use approaches from statistics to derive a pooled estimate closest to the unknown common truth based on how this error is perceived.This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of English- or Spanish-based studies investigating the clinical utility of comprehensive dysphagia screenings in adults who have had an acute stroke.3.2.2 Direct evidence: Models incorporating additional information 3.2.1 Direct evidence: Models incorporating study effects only 3.2 Statistical models for aggregate data A meta-analysis is a secondary source. Here it is convenient to follow the terminology used by the Cochrane Collaboration, and use "meta-analysis" to refer to statistical methods of combining evidence, leaving other aspects of ' research synthesis' or 'evidence synthesis', such as combining information from qualitative studies, for the more general context of systematic reviews. For instance, a meta-analysis may be conducted on several clinical trials of a medical treatment, in an effort to obtain a better understanding of how well the treatment works.4.2 Problems related to studies not reporting non-statistically significant effects 4.1 Publication bias: the file drawer problem 3.3 Validation of meta-analysis results 3.2.3.3 Generalized pairwise modelling framework 3.2.3.2 Frequentist multivariate framework
The term "meta-analysis" was coined in 1976 by the statistician Gene V. This encompassed a review of 145 reports on ESP experiments published from 1882 to 1939, and included an estimate of the influence of unpublished papers on the overall effect (the file-drawer problem). The first meta-analysis of all conceptually identical experiments concerning a particular research issue, and conducted by independent researchers, has been identified as the 1940 book-length publication Extrasensory Perception After Sixty Years, authored by Duke University psychologists J. 4.5 Weak inclusion standards lead to misleading conclusionsThe historical roots of meta-analysis can be traced back to 17th century studies of astronomy, while a paper published in 1904 by the statistician Karl Pearson in the British Medical Journal which collated data from several studies of typhoid inoculation is seen as the first time a meta-analytic approach was used to aggregate the outcomes of multiple clinical studies. 4.4 Problems arising from agenda-driven bias The general steps are then as follows: Steps in a meta-analysis A meta-analysis is usually preceded by a systematic review, as this allows identification and critical appraisal of all the relevant evidence (thereby limiting the risk of bias in summary estimates). In 1992, meta-analysis was first applied to ecological questions by Jessica Gurevitch who used meta-analysis to study competition in field experiments. Chalmers, Robert Rosenthal, Frank L. The requirement of randomization and blinding in a clinical trial Based on quality criteria, e.g. Selection of studies ('incorporation criteria') Using the PICO model (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). Hedges' g is a popular summary measure for continuous data that is standardized in order to eliminate scale differences, but it incorporates an index of variation between groups: For instance, when considering a meta-analysis of published (aggregate) data: Decide which dependent variables or summary measures are allowed. Decide whether unpublished studies are included to avoid publication bias ( file drawer problem) The treatment of breast cancer. Examine sources of between-study heterogeneity, e.g. Fixed effect or random effects meta-analysis. Selection of a meta-analysis model, e.g. On the other hand, indirect aggregate data measures the effect of two treatments that were each compared against a similar control group in a meta-analysis. This can be directly synthesized across conceptually similar studies using several approaches (see below). From the literature) and typically represents summary estimates such as odds ratios or relative risks. The aggregate data can be direct or indirect.AD is more commonly available (e.g. Methods and assumptions Approaches In general, two types of evidence can be distinguished when performing a meta-analysis: individual participant data (IPD), and aggregate data (AD). Comprehensive Meta Analysis For Screening Tests Series Of StudyStatistical models for aggregate data Direct evidence: Models incorporating study effects only Fixed effects model The fixed effect model provides a weighted average of a series of study estimates. Although it is conventionally believed that one-stage and two-stage methods yield similar results, recent studies have shown that they may occasionally lead to different conclusions. By reducing IPD to AD, two-stage methods can also be applied when IPD is available this makes them an appealing choice when performing a meta-analysis. Two-stage methods first compute summary statistics for AD from each study and then calculate overall statistics as a weighted average of the study statistics. In one-stage methods the IPD from all studies are modeled simultaneously whilst accounting for the clustering of participants within studies. This distinction has raised the need for different meta-analytic methods when evidence synthesis is desired, and has led to the development of one-stage and two-stage methods. This is simply the weighted average of the effect sizes of a group of studies. A common model used to synthesize heterogeneous research is the random effects model of meta-analysis. Treatment effects may differ according to locale, dosage levels, study conditions. This assumption is typically unrealistic as research is often prone to several sources of heterogeneity e.g. Most importantly, the fixed effects model assumes that all included studies investigate the same population, use the same variable and outcome definitions, etc. Consequently, when studies within a meta-analysis are dominated by a very large study, the findings from smaller studies are practically ignored.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |