Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overview, Strengths, and Limitations of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evidence-Based Practice: Toward Optimizing Clinical Outcomes

Abstract

While the main focus of this chapter will be meta-analysis, it cannot be completely isolated from several prerequisites assessed in the systematic review. For example, the studies must address a common question. The eligibility criteria of the underlying studies must be well established. Evaluation techniques for endpoints must be reasonably consistent across the studies. In the clinical setting, when making comparisons between a treatment and control, the underlying studies must be properly randomized. Exploratory meta-analyses and meta-regressions may examine associations between interventions, covariates, and secondary events.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Baldessarini RJ, Hegarty JD, Bird ED, Benes FM (1997) Meta-analysis of postmortem studies of Alzheimer’s disease-like neuropathology in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 154:861–863

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartolucci AA (1999) The significance of clinical trials and the role of meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol 72(3):121–123

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartolucci AA, Howard G (2006) Meta-analysis of data from the six primary prevention trials of cardiovascular events using aspirin. Am J Cardiol 10:746–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carlin JB (1992) Meta-analysis for 2 × 2 tables: a Bayesian approach. Stat Med 11:141–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, Ambroz A (1981) A method for assessing the quality of a randomized clinical trial. Control Clin Trials 2:31–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group (1988) Effects of adjuvant tamoxifen and cytotoxic therapy on mortality in early breast cancer: an overview of 61 trials in 28, 896 women. N Eng J Med 319:1681–1692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Egger M, Davey G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman D (eds) (2001) Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. 2nd edition. London, British Medical Journal 323:101–105

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fisher RA (1932) Statistical methods for research workers, 4th edition. Oliver and Boyd, London

    Google Scholar 

  11. Glass R (1976) Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Edu Res 5:3–8

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hedges LV, Olkin O (1985) Statistical methods for meta- analysis. Chapter 6, pp 107–118 Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  13. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jadad AR, Moor RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17(1):1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Morton SC, Adams JL, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG (2004) Meta-regression Approaches: What, Why,When, and How? Technical Review 8 (Prepared by Southern California– RAND Evidence-based Practice Center, under Contract No 290-97-0001). AHRQ Publication No. 04-0033. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pearson K (1904) Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. BMJ 3:1243–1246

    Google Scholar 

  17. Peto R (1986) Five years of Tamoxifen, or more? National Cancer Inst 88(24):1791–1793

    Google Scholar 

  18. Poole C, Greenland S (1999) Random-effects meta-analysis are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol 150(5):469–475

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Staessen JA, Wang J, Gueyffier F, Thijs L, Boutitie F (2007) Meta-analysis of continuous outcomes combining individual patient data and aggregate data. Stat Med 27:1870–1893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D (2003) WinBugs User Manual. Version 1.4, Cambridge, UK. http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs

  21. Thompson SG, Higgins JPT (2002) How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21:1559–1573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tippett LHC (1931) The method of statistics. Williams and Norgate, London

    Google Scholar 

  23. Williamson PR, Smith CT, Hutton JL, Marson AG (2002) Aggregate meta analysis with time to event outcomes. 2002. Stat Med 21(22):3337–3351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1665 University Boulevard, Birmingham, AL, 35294-0022, USA

    Alfred A. Bartolucci & William B. Hillegass

Authors
  1. Alfred A. Bartolucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William B. Hillegass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alfred A. Bartolucci .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Dentistry, Div. Oral Biology & Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, 90095-1668, USA

    Francesco Chiappelli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bartolucci, A.A., Hillegass, W.B. (2010). Overview, Strengths, and Limitations of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. In: Chiappelli, F. (eds) Evidence-Based Practice: Toward Optimizing Clinical Outcomes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05025-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05025-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-05024-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-05025-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation