Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_37
  • Chapter length: 12 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-662-58254-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 37.1
Fig. 37.2
Fig. 37.3
Fig. 37.4

References

  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman D. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. Somerset: Wiley; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  5. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Green S, Higgins JP. Preparing a cochrane review. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions; 2012. p. 11–30.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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. Jinha AE. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publ. 2010;23(3):258–63.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(9):820.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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. Mchugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med. 2012;22(3):276–82.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Pae C-U. Why systematic review rather than narrative review? Psychiatry Investig. 2015;12(3):417.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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. Santos JRA. Cronbach’s alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J Ext. 1999;37:2.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Torgerson C. Systematic reviews. London: Continuum; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Uman LS. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;20(1):57–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  27. Weil RJ. The future of surgical research. PLoS Med. 2004;1(1):e13.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  28. Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–9.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shakib Akhter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 ISAKOS

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Akhter, S., Pauyo, T., Khan, M. (2019). What Is the Difference Between a Systematic Review and a Meta-analysis?. In: , et al. Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_37

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_37

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58253-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58254-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)