Advertisement

Contributions of Meta-Analysis to Transfusion Medicine

  • E. C. Vamvakas
Chapter
Part of the Developments in Hematology and Immunology book series (DIHI, volume 36)

Abstract

Meta-analysis is the structured and systematic integration of information from different studies of a given problem. It refers to the disciplined synthesis of previous research findings where the results of multiple reports on the efficacy of an intervention are compared, contrasted, and re-analyzed. When the results are discrepant, the purpose of the meta-analysis is to investigate the reasons for disagreements among the studies. When the results are concordant, the goal of the overview is to derive, through the application of a number of quantitative techniques, a measure of the effect of the intervention across the combined investigations. This measure is referred to as the ‘average’ or ‘summary’ effectof the treatment under study [1-5].

Keywords

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Publication Bias Human Leukocyte Antigen Platelet Transfusion Recurrent Miscarriage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jenicek M. Meta-analysis in medicine: where we are and where we want to go. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42:35–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    L’Abbé KA, Detsky AS, O’Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107:224–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glass GV, McGraw B, Smith ML. Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooper H, Hedges LV, eds. The handbook of research synthesis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 1976; 5:3–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moher D, Olkin I. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: a concern for standards. JAMA 1995; 274:1962–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sacks HS, Berner J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987; 316:450–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yusuf S, Simon R, Ellenberg S, eds. Proceedings of “Methodologic Issues in Overviews of Randomized Clinical Trials”. Workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, 15–16 May, 1986. Stat Med 1987; 6:217–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodman SN. Have you ever met a meta-analysis you didn’t like? Am Intern Med 1991; 114:244–46.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goodman SN. Meta-analysis in health services research. In: Armenian HK, Shapiro S, eds. Epidemiology and health services. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998:229–59.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schiffer CA, Dutcher JP, Aisner J, et al. A randomized trial of leukocyte-depleted platelet transfusion to modify alloimmunization in patients with leukemia. Blood 1983; 62:815–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andreu G, Dewailly J, Leberre C, et al. Prevention of HLA immunization with leukocyte-poor packed red cells and platelet concentrates obtained by filtration. Blood 1988; 72:964–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sniecinski I, O’Donnell MR, Nowicki B, et al. Prevention of refractoriness and HLA alloimmunization using filtered blood products. Blood 1988; 71:1402–07.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oksanen K, Kekomaki R, Ruutu T, et al. Prevention of alloimmunization in patients with acute leukemia by use of white cell-reduced blood components-A randomized trial. Transfusion 1991;31:588–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Marwijk Kooy M, van Prooijen HC, Moes M, et al. Use of leukocyte-depleted platelet concentrates for the prevention of refractoriness and primary HLA alloimmunization: A prospective, randomized trial. Blood 1991; 77:201–05.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Williamson LM, Wimperis JZ, Williamson P, et al. Bedside filtration of blood products in the prevention of HLA alloimmunization-A prospective, randomized study. Blood 1994; 83:3028–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sintnicolaas K, van Marwijk Kooij M, van Prooijen HC, et al. Leukocyte depletion of random single-donor platelet transfusions does not prevent secondary human leukocyte antigen-alloimmunization and refractoriness: A randomized prospective study. Blood 1995; 85:824–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heddle NM. The efficacy of leukodepletion to improve platelet transfusion response: A critical appraisal of clinical studies. Transf Med Rev 1994; 8:15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andreu G, Dewailly J. Prevention of HLA alloimmunization by using leukocyte-depleted components. In: Lane TA, Myllyla G, eds. Leukocyte-depleted blood products. Curr Stud Hematol Blood Transf, no. 60. Basel, Switzerland: Karger, 1994: 2940.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vamvakas EC. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the efficacy of white cell reduction in preventing HLA-alloimmunization and refractoriness to random-donor platelet transfusions. Transf Med Rev 1998; 12:258–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wooley AL, Hogikyan ND, Geates GA, Haughney BH, Schechtman KB, Goldenberg JL. Effect of blood transfusion on recurrence of head and neck carcinoma. Retrospective review and meta-analysis. Ann Otol Rhino’ Laryngol 1992; 101:724–30.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chung M, Steinmetz OK, Gordon PH. Perioperative blood transfusion and outcome after resection for colorectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 1993; 80:427–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Amato A, Pescatori M. Perioperative blood transfusion and outcome after resection for colorectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 1994; 81:313–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vamvakas E. Perioperative blood transfusion and cancer recurrence: meta-analysis for explanation. Transfusion 1995; 35:760–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brand A, Houbiers JGA. Clinical studies of blood transfusion and cancer. In: Vamvakas EC, Blajchman MA, eds. Immunomodulatory effects of blood transfusion. Bethesda, MD: American Association of Blood Banks Press, 1999: 145–90.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Busch ORC, Hop WCJ, Hoynek van Papendrecht MAW, Marquet RL, Jeekel J. Blood transfusions and prognosis in colorectal center. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:137276.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heiss MM, Mempel W, Delanoff C, et al. Blood transfusion-modulated tumor recurrence: first results of a randomized study of autologous versus allogeneic blood transfusion in colorectal cancer surgery. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12:1859–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Houbiers JGA, Brand A, van de Watering LMG, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing transfusion of leukocyte-depleted or buffy-coat-depleted blood in surgery for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1994; 344:573–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jensen LS, Andersen AJ, Christiansen PM, et al. Postoperative infection and natural killer cell function following blood transfusion in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 1992; 79:513–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heiss MM, Mempel W, Jauch KW, et al. Beneficial effect of autologous blood transfusion on infectious complications after colorectal cancer surgery. Lancet 1993; 342:1328–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Busch ORC, Hop WCJ, Marquet RL, et al. Autologous blood and infection after colorectal surgery (letter). Lancet 1994; 343:668–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jensen LS, Kissmeyer-Nielsen P, Wolff B, et al. Randomized comparison of leukocyte-depleted versus huffy-coat-poor blood transfusion and complications after colorectal surgery. Lancet 1996; 348:841–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van de Watering LMG, Hermans J, Houbiers JGA, et al. Beneficial effect of leukocyte depletion of transfused blood on postoperative complications in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A randomized clinical trial. Circulation 1998; 97:562–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tartter PI, Mohandas K, Azar P, et al. Randomized trial comparing packed red blood cell transfusion with and without leukocyte depletion for gastrointestinal surgery. Am J Surg 1998; 176:462–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vamvakas E. Transfusion-associated cancer recurrence and infection: meta-analysis of randomized, controlled clinical trials. Transfusion 1996; 36:175–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McAlister FA, Clark HD, Wells PS, Laupacis A. Perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion does not cause adverse sequelae in patients with cancer: A meta-analysis of unconfounded studies. Br J Surg 1998; 85:71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vamvakas EC, Dzik WH, Blajchman MA. Deleterious effects of transfusion-associated immunomodulation: Appraisal of the evidence and recommendations for prevention. In: Vamvakas EC, Blajchman MA, eds. Immunomodulatory effects of blood transfusion. Bethesda, MD: American Association of Blood Banks Press, 1999:253–85.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cowchock S. What’s a mother to do? Analysis of trials evaluating new treatments for unexplained recurrent miscarriages and other complaints. Am J Reprod Immunol 1991; 26:156–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fraser EJ, Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Immunization as therapy for recurrent spontaneous abortion: a review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82:854–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    The Recurrent Miscarriage Immunotherapy Trialists Group. Worldwide collaborative observational study and meta-analysis on allogeneic leukocyte immunotherapy for recurrent spontaneous abortion. Am J Reprod Immunol 1994; 32:55–72Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jeng FT, Scott JR, Burmeister LF. A comparison of meta-analytic results using literature vs. individual patient data: paternal cell immunization for recurrent miscarriage. JAMA 1995; 274:830–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hollaar GL, Gooszen HG, Post S, et al. Perioperative blood transfusion does not prevent recurrence in Crohn’s disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 1995; 21:134–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vamvakas EC, Pineda AA. Meta-analysis of clinical studies of the efficacy of granulocyte transfusions in the treatment of bacterial sepsis. J Clin Apheresis 1996; 11:1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vamvakas EC, Pineda AA. Determinants of the efficacy of prophylactic granulocyte transfusions: A meta-analysis. J Clin Apheresis 1997; 12:74–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vamvakas EC, Pineda AA, Weinshenker BG. Meta-analysis of clinical studies of the efficacy of plasma exchange in the treatment of chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. J Clin Apheresis 1995; 10:163–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Huet C, Salmi LR, Fergusson D, Koopman-van Gemert AW, Rubens F, Laupacis A. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of cell salvage to minimize perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in cardiac and orthopedic surgery. Anesth Analg 1999; 89:861–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bryson GL, Laupacis A, Wells GA. Does acute normovolemic hemodilution reduce perioperative allogeneic transfusion? A meta-analysis. Anesth Analg 1998; 86:9–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Forgie MA, Wells PS, Laupacis A, Fergusson D. Preoperative autologous donation decreases allogeneic transfusion but increases exposure to all red blood cell transfusion: results of a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158:610–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rubens FD, Fergusson D, Wells PS, Huang M, McGowan JL, Laupacis A. Platelet-rich plasmapheresis in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of the effect on transfusion requirements. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998; 116:641–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Laupacis A, Fergusson D. Erythropoietin to minimize perioperative blood transfusion: a systematic review of randomized trials. Transfus Med 1998; 8:309–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Phillips K. The use of meta-analysis in technology assessment: a meta-analysis of the enzyme immunosorbent assay human immunodeficiency virus antibody test. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44:925–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hellstrom-Lindberg E. Efficacy of erythropoietin in the myelodysplastic syndromes: a meta-analysis of 205 patients from 17 studies. Br J Haematol 1995; 89:67–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Henry DH, Beall GN, Benson CA, et al. Recombinant human erythropoietin in the treatment of anemia associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and zidovudine therapy. Overview of four clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117:739–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pagliaro L, Crazi A, Cammaa C, et al. Interferon-alpha for chronic hepatitis C: an analysis of pretreatment clinical predictors of response. Hepatology 1994; 19:820–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Begg CB, Pilotte L, McGlave PB. Bone marrow transplantation versus chemotherapy in acute non-lymphocytic leukemia: a meta-analytic review. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1989;25:1519–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Laupacis A, Fergusson D. Drugs to minimize perioperative blood loss in cardiac surgery: meta-analyses using perioperative blood transfusion as the outcome. Anesth Analg 1997; 85:1258–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fleiss JL, Tytum A, Ury HK. A simple approximation for calculating sample sizes for comparing independent proportions. Biometrics 1980; 36:343–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    The Trial to Reduce Alloimmunization to Platelets Study Group. Leukocyte reduction and ultraviolet B irradiation of platelets to prevent alloimmunization and refractoriness to platelet transfusions. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:1681–89.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vamvakas EC. Multicenter randomized controlled trials in transfusion medicine. Trans Med Rev 2000; 14:137–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Freiman JA, Chalmers RC, Smith H Jr, et al. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized controlled trial: Survey of 71 “negative” trials. N Engl J Med 1978; 299:690–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Passamani E. Clinical trials: are they ethical? N Engl J Med 1991; 324:1589–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hellman S, Hellman DS. Of mice but not men: problems of the randomized clinical trial. N Engl J Med 324:1585–89.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Borzak S, Ridker PM. Discordance between meta-analyses and large-scale randomized controlled trials: examples from the management of acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123:873–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Bailar JC III. The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:559–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Meta-analysis under scrutiny. Lancet 1997; 350:675.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Villar J, Carrolli G, Belizan JM. Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Lancet 1995; 345:772–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Cappelleri JC, Ioannidis JPA, Schmid CH, et al. Large trials versus meta-analyses of small trials: How do their results compare? JAMA 1996; 276:1332–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    LeLorier J, Grégoire B, Benhaddad A, et al. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:536–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ioannidis JPA, Cappelleri JC, Lau J. Issues in comparisons between meta-analyses and large trials. JAMA 1998; 279:1089–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    O’Rourke K, Detsky AS. Meta-analysis in medical research: strong encouragement for higher quality in individual research efforts. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42:1021–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Gerbarg ZB, Horowitz RI. Resolving conflicting clinical trials: guidelines for meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41:503–09.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized controlled trial. Control Clin Trials 1981; 2:31–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O’Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L’Abbé KA. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45:255–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Zelen M. Guidelines for publishing papers on cancer clinical trials: responsibilities of editors and authors. J Clin Oncol 1983; 1:164–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    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
  77. 77.
    Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized trials. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12:195–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17:1–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Moher D, Jones BA, Cook DJ, et al. Does quality of reports of randomized trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998; 352:609–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chron Dis 1979; 32:51–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Miettinen OS, Cook EF. Confounding: Essence and detection. Am J Epidemiol 1981; 114: 593–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Schultz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273:408–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Huskisson EC, Scott J. How blind is double-blind? And does it matter? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1976; 3:331–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Pocock SJ, Lagakos SW. Practical experience of randomization in cancer trials: An international survey. Br J Cancer 1982; 46:368–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, et al. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1983; 309:1358–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Chalmers TC, Levin H, Sacks HS, Reitman D, Bernier J, Nagalingam R. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. I. Control of bias and comparison with large co-operative trials. Stat Med 1987; 6:315–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Peto R. Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials? Stat Med 1987; 6:233–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Yusuf S. Obtaining medically meaningful answers from an overview of randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1987; 6:281–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Fleiss IL, Gross AJ. Meta-analysis in epidemiology, with special reference to studies of the association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer: a critique. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44:127–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Eysenck HJ. An exercise in megasilliness. Am Psycol 1978; 35:517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Wachter KW. Disturbed by meta-analysis? Science 1988; 241:1407–08.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic research. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co, 1982: 194–219.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Felson DT. Bias in meta-analytic research. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45:885–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Hewitt P, Chalmers TC. Using MEDLINE to peruse the literature. Control Clin Trials 1985; 6:75–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Hewitt P, Chalmers TC. Perusing the literature: methods of accessing MEDLINE and related data bases. Control Clin Trials 1985; 6:168–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Poynard T, Conn HO. The retrieval or randomized clinical trials in liver disease from the medical literature: a comparison of MEDLARS and manual methods. Control Clin Trials 1985; 6:271–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Dickersin K, Kewitt P, Mutch L, Chalmers I, Chalmers TC. Perusing the literature: comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal database. Control Clin Trials 1985; 6:306–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, et al. Computer searching of the medical literature: an evaluation of MEDLINE search systems. Ann Intern Med 1985; 103:812–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Begg CB, Berlin JA. Publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81:107–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Begg CB, Berlin JA. Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. J Royal Stat Soc A 1988; 151:419–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, et al. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1987; 8:343–53.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Simes RJ. Confronting publication bias: a cohort design for meta-analysis. Stat Med 1987; 6:11–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of trials. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4:1529–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992; 267:374–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Easterbrook PI, Berlin JA, Copalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337:867–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Chalmers I, Adams M, Dickersin K, et al. A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. JAMA 1990; 263:1401–05.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Grégoire G, Derderian F, LeLorier J. Selecting the language of publication included in a meta-analysis: Is there a Tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48:15963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Egger M, Zellweger-Zatner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomized controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997; 350:326–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, et al. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: Implications for conduct and reporting of systemic reviews. Lancet 1996; 347:363–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7:177–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954; 10:101–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Vamvakas EC. Meta-analysis in transfusion medicine. Transfusion 1997; 37:329–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. C. Vamvakas

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations