Advertisement

What Is the Difference Between a Systematic Review and a Meta-analysis?

  • Shakib AkhterEmail author
  • Thierry Pauyo
  • Moin Khan
Chapter

Abstract

Distinguishing between a systematic review and meta-analysis is essential to understand the role each plays in presenting and analysing data and estimates of treatment effects. Often, novice researchers mistakenly use these terms synonymously. A thorough understanding of the similarities and differences between these two research methodologies is needed to appropriately evaluate the quality of conclusions emerging from such studies. The systematic review allows the researcher to synthesize and critically appraise a number of studies in a specific context to provide evidence-based conclusions. Comparatively, atop the hierarchical chain of evidence lies the meta-analysis, in which a systematic review is performed and then statistical methods are employed to quantitatively pool the results of a selected number of studies in a specific context. This design is a robust method of combined analysis and is therefore deemed the highest level of evidence when pooling high-quality randomized controlled trials. Understanding and appreciating the methodological differences in these two designs are elemental in planning, implementing, and evaluating high-quality research.

References

  1. 1.
    Aslam S, Emmanuel P. Formulating a researchable question: a critical step for facilitating good clinical research. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS. 2010;31(1):47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brighton B, Bhandari M, Tornetta P, Felson DT. Hierarchy of evidence: from case reports to randomized controlled trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(1):305–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman D. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. Somerset: Wiley; 2013.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Green S, Higgins JP. Preparing a cochrane review. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions; 2012. p. 11–30.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1995;274(22):1800–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hopewell S, Mcdonald S, Clarke M, Egger M. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000010.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jinha AE. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publ. 2010;23(3):258–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kagoma YK, Crowther MA, Douketis J, Bhandari M, Eikelboom J, Lim W. Use of antifibrinolytic therapy to reduce transfusion in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery: a systematic review of randomized trials. Thromb Res. 2009;123(5):687–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine: how to review and apply findings of healthcare research. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khan M, Evaniew N, Bedi A, Ayeni OR, Bhandari M. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative tears of the meniscus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can Med Assoc J. 2014;186(14):1057–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(9):820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liberati A, Al tman DG, Tetzlaff J, Murlow C, Gøtzsche PC, Clarke M, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):W65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matthew EF, Eleni EP, George AM, Georgios P. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. Fed Am Soc Exp Biol. 2015;20 Sep 2007.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mchugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med. 2012;22(3):276–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pae C-U. Why systematic review rather than narrative review? Psychiatry Investig. 2015;12(3):417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Russell RM. Issues and challenges in conducting systematic reviews to support development of nutrient reference values: workshop summary. Rockville: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Santos JRA. Cronbach’s alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J Ext. 1999;37:2.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Torgerson C. Systematic reviews. London: Continuum; 2003.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Uman LS. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;20(1):57–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Verhagen AP, Vet HCD, Bie RAD, Boers M, Brandt PAVD. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(7):651–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weil RJ. The future of surgical research. PLoS Med. 2004;1(1):e13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2015;8(1):2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAKOS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Health, Evidence, and ImpactMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations