Meta-Analysis, Review and Update of Methodologies

In 1982 thrombolytic therapy for acute coronary syndromes was controversial. In a meta-analysis of 7 trials Stampfer et al. found a reduced risk of mortality of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.68–0.95). These findings1 were not accepted by cardiologists until 1986, when a large clinical trial confirmed the conclusions2 , and streptokinase became widely applied.

Meta-analyses can be defined as systematic reviews with pooled data. Traditionally, they are post-hoc analyses. However, probability statements may be more valid, than they usually are with post-hoc studies, particularly if performed on outcomes that were primary outcomes in the original trials. Problems with pooling are frequent: correlations are often nonlinear3; effects are often multifactorial rather than unifactorial4; continuous data frequently have to be transformed into binary data for the purpose of comparability5; poor studies may be included and coverage may be limited6 ; data may not be homogeneous and may fail to relate to hypotheses.7 In spite of these problems, the methods of meta-analysis are an invaluable scientific activity: they establish whether scientific findings are consistent8 , and can be generalized across populations and treatment variations9 , and whether findings vary between subgroups.10 The methods also limit bias, improve reliability and accuracy of conclusions11, and increase the power and precision of treatment effects and risk exposures.6


Cholesterol Angiotensin Smoke Stein Pravastatin 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Stampfer MJ, Goldhaber SZ, Yusuf S. Effects of intravenous streptokinase on acute myocardial infarction: pooled results from randomized trials. N Engl J Med. 1982; 307:1180–2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1986; 1: 397–402.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glass GV, Smith ML. Meta-analysis of research on class size and achievement. Educational Evolution and Policy Analysis. 1979; 1: 2–16.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fleiss JL, Gross AJ. Meta-analysis in epidemiology, with special reference to studies of the association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991; 44: 127–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stein RA. Meta-analysis from one FOA reviewer’s perspective. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section of the American Statistical Association. 1988; 2: 34–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhou X, Fang J, Yu C, Xu Z, Lu Y. Meta-analysis. In: Advanced Medical Statistics, Lu Y and Fang J, eds, World Scientific, River Edge, NJ, 2003, pp 233–316.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turnbul F for the Blood Pressure Lowering Trialists’ Collaboration. Effects of different blood pressure lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2003; 362: 1527–35.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of the best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1998; 317: 339–42.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Straus SE, Sackett DL. Using research findings in clinical practice. BMJ. 1998; 317: 339–42.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ. 1998; 317: 465–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones DR. Meta-analysis: Weighing the evidence. Stat Med. 1995; 14: 137–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Methods in meta-analysis. 2nd Edition. Sage Public Inc, NY, 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cleophas TJ. Meta-analysis. In: Cleophas TJ, Zwinderman AH, Cleophas AF, eds, Statistics Applied to Clinical Trials, Third Edition, Springer, NY, 2006, pp 205–18.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oxman AD, Guyatt G. Guidelines for reading reviews. Can Med Assoc J. 1988; 138: 697–703.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper The Medline database. BMJ.1997; 315: 180–3.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lefebvre C, McDonald S. Development of a sensitive search strategy for reports of randomized trials in EMBASE. In: Paper presented at the Fourth International Cochrane Colloquium, 20–24 Oct 1996; Adelaide, Australia, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    SPSS Statistical Software.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Stata, statistical software for professionals.
  22. 22.
    Comprehensive Meta-analysis, by Biostat.
  23. 23.
    Greenland S, Robins JM. Estimation of common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. Biometrics. 1985; 41: 55–68.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985; 27: 335–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ioannides JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA. 2005; 294: 210–28.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chan AW, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on Pub Med : review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ. 2005; 330: 753–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic reviews. BMJ Publishing Group, London, UK, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    National Council of Social Studies. Statistical and power analysis software.
  29. 29.
    Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity should be investigated. In: Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic reviews. BMJ Publishing Group, London, UK, 1995, pp 48–63.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dersimonian R, Laird NM. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7: 177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berlin JA, Laird NM, Sacks HS, Chalmers TC. A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials. Stat Med.1989; 8: 141–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21: 1539–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shipley MJ, Pocock SJ, Marmot MG. Does plasma cholesterol concentration predict mortality from coronary heart disease in elderly people? 18 year follow-up in Whitehall study. BMJ. 1991; 303: 89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Khan KS. Daya S, Jadad AR. The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews. Arch Int Med. 1996; 156: 661–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Riegelman RK. Meta-analysis. In: Studying a study & testing a test. Riegelman RK, ed, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2005, pp 99–115.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    Meta-analysis Mark X. Microsoft’s ExcelGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
  42. 42.
  43. 43.
    Leandro G. Meta-analysis in medical research. BMJ books, London UK, 2005.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Galbraith RF. A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several trials. Stat Med. 1988; 7: 889–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Boekholdt SM, Sacks FM, Jukema JW, Shepherd J, Freeman DJ, McMahon AD, Cambien F, Nicaud V, De grooth GJ, Talmud PJ, Humphries SE, Miller GJ, Eiriksdottir G, Gudnason V, Kauma H, Kakko S, Savolainen MJ, Arca M, Montasli A, Liu S, Lanz HJ, Zwinderman AH, Kuivenhoven JA, Kastelein JJ.Cholesterol ester transfer protein TaqiB variant, high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, cardiovascular risk, and efficacy of pravastatin treatment. Circulation. 2005; 111: 278–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2002; 21: 589–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D’Amico RD, Bradburn M, Eastwood AJ. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess. 2005; 9: 1–148.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002; 21: 2313–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Terrin N, Schmid CH, Griffith JL, D’Agostino RB, Selker HP. External validation of predictive models: a comparison of logistic regression, classification trees, and neural networks. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56: 721–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tang JL, Liu JL. Misleading funnel plots for detection of bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000; 53: 477–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schmid CH, Stark PC, Berlin JA, Landais P, Lau J. Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004; 57: 683–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med. 2004; 23: 1662–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Casas JP, Leonelo EB, Humphries SE. Endothelial NO synthase genotype and ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 2004; 109: 1359–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lau J, Schmid CH, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995; 48: 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Conlin PR, Spence JD, Williams B, Ribeiro AB, Saito I, Benedict C, Bunt AM. Angiotensin II antagonists for hypertension: are there differences in efficacy? Am J Hypertens. 2000; 13: 418–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderien F. Discrepancies between meta-analyses nand subsequent large randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1997; 337: 536–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Temple R. Meta-analyses and epidemiological studies in drug development and postmarketing studies. JAMA. 1999; 281: 841–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Brewer T, Colditz GA. Postmarketing surveillance and adverse drug reactions; current perspectives. JAMA. 1999; 281: 824–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Personalised recommendations