Meta-analyses: a method to maximise the evidence from clinical studies?
- First Online:
- 102 Downloads
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is becoming the guiding principle for clinical treatment decisions. But evidence remains a loosely defined term. Multiple criteria for evidence criteria have been proposed. Most influential evidence criteria give priority to meta-analyses because they promise an objective procedure to combine the outcomes of all informative, putatively conflicting studies on the same issue in an overall score. However, we claim that meta-analyses are of limited informative value for the following six reasons: (1) meta-analyses are often “overpowered” with clinically irrelevant results that might emerge as highly significant; (2) there is serious concern of publication biases with “negative” studies not being published; (3) meta-analyses consider the variation in the results of the empirical studies included to be random noise, however, the variability of results across studies can be informative; (4) the result of a meta-analysis depends on the strategy used to identify the included empirical studies; (5) the quality of conclusions from meta-analyses depends on the statistical tests used to combine the results of the separate studies; (6) the qualitative conclusions drawn from the meta-analytical combination of individual studies may depend on specific design aspects of the individual studies. Thus, meta-analyses are primarily a method to generate hypotheses through an a posteriori analysis of treatment effects.
KeywordsMeta-analyses Evidence-based medicine Clinical studies
- 4.Bandelow B, Zohar J, Hollander E, Kasper S, Möller HJ et al (2008) World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of anxiety, obsessive–compulsive and post-traumatic stress disorders—first revision. World J Biol Psychiatry 9:248–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Bauer M, Whybrow P, Angst J, Versiani M, Möller H-J (2004) Biologische Behandlung unipolarer depressiver Störungen. Behandlungsleitlinien der World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP), Stuttgart, Wissenschaftliche VerlagsgesellschaftGoogle Scholar
- 9.Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Salanti G, Geddes JR, Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Watanabe N, Nakagawa A, Omori IM, McGuire H, Tansella M, Barbui C (2009) Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet 273:746–758Google Scholar
- 15.Gunnell D, Saperia J, Ashby D (2005) Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and suicide in adults: meta-analysis of drug company data from placebo controlled, randomised controlled trials submitted to the MHRA’s safety review. BMJ 330:385. doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7488.385 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Möller H-J, Maier W (2009) Evidence-based medicine in psychopharmacotherapy: possibilities, problems and limitations. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
- 28.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Depression Management of depression in primary and secondary care—NICE guidance (2009) Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG23fullguideline.pdf.Anonymous