A large series of studies on the same treatment and for the same indication often include trials that lean one way while others go in the opposite direction and a few are just neutral. A relatively new statistical technique, the meta analysis, is seen as a hopeful method that can take a large body of studies and provide an overall assessment of a treatment effect. The technique, admired because of its ability to take many small trials and blend them into a consensus finding has its detractors as well. There are methodological issues such as accounting for unpublished studies, or the inclusion of published results that are of poor quality. The absence of individual patient data can also be a deterrent to a sound analysis. Examples of meta analyses cases illustrate where the method has provided useful revelations as well as questionable conclusions. In the end, however, because there is an incomplete understanding of the technique, caution is called for when interpreting the results from a meta analysis. There is clearly a need for meta analysts to educate the health care professions about the strengths and weaknesses of this promising technique.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Chapter 15 — The Meta Analysis
Cited References
Egger M, Smith G. Misleading meta-analysis. Br Med J 1995:310;752–754.
Egger M, Smith G. Meta-analysis: potentials and promise. Br Med J 1997:315;1371–1374.
Egger M, Smith G. Meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies. Br Med J 1998:316;51–66.
Grady D. Medical journal cites misleading research. New York Times Nov 10, 1999:A18.
LeLorier L, Grégoire G, Benhaddad A, et al. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. New Engl J Med 1997:337;536–542.
Simon S. Statistical evidence in medical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Smith G, Egger M. Meta-analysis: unresolved issues and future developments. Br Med J 1998:316;221–225.
General References
Clarke M, Stewart L. Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta-analyses? Br Med J 1994:309;1007–1010.
Egger M, Smith G, Phillips A. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. Br Med J 1997:315;1533–1537.
Egger M, Smith G, Altman D. (eds). Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: British Medical Journal Publishing Group, 2001.
Egger M, Smith G, Sterne J. Uses and abuses of meta-analysis. Clinl Med 2001:1;478–484.
Gerbarg Z, Horwitz R. Resolving conflicting clinical trials: guidelines for meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 41:5;503–509.
Naylor C. Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research. Br Med J 1997:15;617–619.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2009). Meta Analysis – An Alternative to Large Trials. In: It's Great! Oops, No It Isn't. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8907-7_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8907-7_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8906-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8907-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)