Advertisement

Limitations and Advantages of Meta-analysis in Clinical Trials

  • H. E. Rockette
  • C. K. Redmond
Conference paper
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 111)

Abstract

Meta-analysis has recently been applied to a variety of areas in medical research (Collins and Langman 1985; Himel et al. 1986; Collins et al. 1985; Tran and Welt- man 1985). By meta-analysis we mean a quantitative synthesis of data across several different but related studies. This usually entails the application of uniform methods of statistical analyses and/or data presentation. Reasons for performing a meta-analysis include confirmation of a general hypothesis by combining data from related studies, estimation of a general treatment effect by combining data from related studies, generation of hypotheses for further testing, and convincing others of a finding by presenting a systematic summary of all studies related to that finding.

Keywords

Average Treatment Effect Classical Hypothesis Public Health Decision Systematic Summary Adjuvant Therapy Trial 
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. Begg CB (1985) A measure to aid in the interpretation of published clinical trials. Stat Med 4:1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Byar D (1985) Assessing apparent treatment-covariate interactions in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 4: 255–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collins R, Langman M (1985) Treatment with histamine-H antagonists in acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. N Engl J Med 313: 659–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins R, Yusuf S, Peto R (1985) Overview of randomized trials of diuretics in pregnancy. B Med J 290: 17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 7: 177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A (1986) The concept of an overview of cancer clinical trials with special emphasis on early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 4(11): 1696–1703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Green S, Byar D (1980) Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: the fallacy of omnimetrics. Stat Med 3: 361–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greenwald AG (1975) Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychol Bull 82: 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Himel HN, Liberati AL, Gelber RD, Chalmers TC (1986) Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a pooled estimate based on published randomized control trials. JAMA 256:1148–1159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Light RJ, Pillemer DB (1984) Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  11. National Institutes of Health (1985) Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. NIH consensus development conference statement, vol 5, no 12. NIH consensus development conference, September 1985, Bethesda, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  12. Pocock SJ (1984) Clinical trials: a practical approach. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Tran ZV, Weltman A (1985) Differential effects of exercise on serum lipid and lipoprotein levels seen with changes in body weight: a meta-analysis. JAMA 254: 919–924PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. E. Rockette
    • 1
  • C. K. Redmond
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public HealthUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations