Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Big Data, Metanalysis and Sistematic Reviews: The Jungle of Statistics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Essential Writing, Communication and Narrative Skills for Medical Scientists Before and After the COVID Era

Abstract

In health and medical sciences, with developments in computing, there is a rapid growth in data both in form of “Big” registries and published papers. Both offer opportunities to perform statistically powerful analyses, but each has its inherent challenges. Large datasets, in theory, offer consistent data, an assumption that ought to be tested concerning data quality in each project. Published studies that assess the same outcome but in different scenarios introduce the problem of variability in the results obtained by different researchers. A systematic review scientifically collates and investigates the literature to objectively summarize the evidence related to the research topic, using meta-analysis to statistically synthesize the results of individual studies where appropriate. These reviews can be used to underpin guidelines and recommendations. Evidence synthesis is essential for evidence-based medicine. The aim of this chapter is to present the conceptual bases for conducting and interpreting a systematic review, emphasizing key points during their execution through an exemplar review.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Khan KSKR, Antes G, Kleijnen J. Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine. London: Hodder Annold; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Khan KS, Bachmann LM, ter Riet G. Systematic reviews with individual patient data meta-analysis to evaluate diagnostic tests. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;108(2):121–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Khan KS, Ball E, Fox CE, Meads C. Systematic reviews to evaluate causation: An overview of methods and application. Evid Based Med. 2012;17(5):137–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nixon J, Khan KS, Kleijnen J. Summarising economic evaluations in systematic reviews: a new approach. BMJ. 2001;322(7302):1596–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Silva-Fernández L, Carmona L. Meta-analysis in the era of big data. Clin Rheumatol. 2019;38(8):2027–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Afnan MAM, Khan KS, Mol BW. Generating translatable evidence to improve patient care: the contribution of human factors. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41(3):353–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Fernández-Reino M English language use and profienciy of migrants in the UK-migration observatory: migration observatory; 2019. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/english-language-use-and-proficiency-of-migrants-in-the-uk/.

  9. Gandhi TK, Burstin HR, Cook EF, Puopolo AL, Haas JS, Brennan TA, et al. Drug complications in outpatients. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(3):149–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Jih J, Vittinghoff E, Fernandez A. Patient-physician language concordance and use of preventive care services among limited English proficient Latinos and Asians. Public Health Rep. 2015;130(2):134–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lehane D, Campion P. Interpreters: why should the NHS provide them? Br J Gen Pract. 2018;68(677):564–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Jaeger FN, Pellaud N, Laville B, Klauser P. Barriers to and solutions for addressing insufficient professional interpreter use in primary healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chien PF, Khan KS, Siassakos D. Registration of systematic reviews: PROSPERO. BJOG. 2012;119(8):903–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. García-Martín M, Amezcua-Prieto C, Al Wattar B, Jørgensen JS, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Khan KS. Patient and public involvement in sexual and reproductive health: Time to properly integrate citizen’s input into science. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cano-Ibáñez N, Zolfaghari Y, Amezcua-Prieto C, et al. Physician-Patient Language Discordance and Poor Health Outcomes: A Systematic Scoping Review. Frontiers in public health. 2021:9;629041. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.629041.

  16. Eriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (Pico) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: A systematic review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(4):420–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rogozinska E, Khan K. Grading evidence from test accuracy studies: What makes it challenging compared with the grading of effectiveness studies? Evid Based Med. 2017;22(3):81–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Khan KS, Borowiack E, Roos C, Kowalska M, Zapalska A, Mol BW, et al. Making GRADE accessible: a proposal for graphic display of evidence quality assessments. Evid Based Med. 2011;16(3):65–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rogozińska E, Khan K. Grading evidence from test accuracy studies: what makes it challenging compared with the grading of effectiveness studies? Evid Based Med. 2017;22(3):81–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nothnagel K. RBT: vote counting and meta-analysis. In: Empirical research within resource-based theory: a meta-analysis of the central propositions. Wiesbaden: Gabler; 2008. p. 143–99.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wandersman A, Alia KA, Cook B, Ramaswamy R. Integrating empowerment evaluation and quality improvement to achieve healthcare improvement outcomes. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(10):645–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Auerbach AD, Landefeld CS, Shojania KG. The tension between needing to improve care and knowing how to do it. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(6):608–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Marshall M, Pronovost P, Dixon-Woods M. Promotion of improvement as a science. Lancet. 2013;381(9864):419–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. (IOM) IoM. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Johnston A, Kelly SE, Hsieh SC, Skidmore B, Wells GA. Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;108:64–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Khan KS, Borowiack E, Roos C, Kowalska M, Zapalska A, Mol BW, et al. Making GRADE accessible: a proposal for graphic display of evidence quality assessments. Evid Based Med. 2011;16(3):65–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rogozinska E, Khan K. Grading evidence from test accuracy studies: what makes it challenging compared with the grading of effectiveness studies? Evid Based Med. 2017;22(3):81–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kulier R, Gee H, Khan KS. Five steps from evidence to effect: exercising clinical freedom to implement research findings. BJOG. 2008;115(10):1197–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Vernooij RW, Sanabria AJ, Sola I, Alonso-Coello P, Martinez GL. Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks. Implement Sci. 2014;9:3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Maes-Carballo M, Munoz-Nunez I, Martin-Diaz M, Mignini L, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Khan KS. Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review. Health Expect. 2020;23:1045.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Maes-Carballo M, Mignini L, Martin-Diaz M, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Khan KS. Quality and reporting of clinical guidelines for breast cancer treatment: a systematic review. Breast. 2020;53:201–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Amezcua-Prieto C, Fernandez-Luna JM, Huete-Guadix JF, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Khan KS. Artificial intelligence and automation of systematic reviews in women’s health. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020;32(5):335–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Levit LA, Nass S, Ganz P. Delivering high-quality cancer care: charting a new course for a system in crisis. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Schoenfeld EM, Mader S, Houghton C, Wenger R, Probst MA, Schoenfeld DA, et al. The effect of shared decision making on patients’ likelihood of filing a complaint or lawsuit: a simulation study. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;74(1):126–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Estado BOd. Ley 41/2002 básica reguladora de la autonomía del paciente y de derechos y obligaciones en materia de información y documentación clínica. [Basic Law 41/2002 regulating the autonomy of the patient and rights and obligations regarding information and clinical documentation], BOE; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Senate and House of Representatives. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. HR 3590. Washington; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Department of Health. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. London; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  42. International Shared Decision Making Society; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  43. AECC. Estudio de investigación “Necesidades no clínicas de los pacientes con cáncer y sus acompañantes en España: una visión multidisciplinar”. La mitad de los pacientes oncológicos no participa en la toma de decisiones sobre su tratamiento. [Research study “Non-clinical needs of cancer patients and their companions in Spain: a multidisciplinary vision” . Half of cancer patients do not participate in decision-making about their treatment]. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  44. The Patients Association, UK; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Legare F, Thompson-Leduc P. Twelve myths about shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;96(3):281–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Savelberg W, Boersma LJ, Smidt M, Goossens MFJ, Hermanns R, van der Weijden T. Does lack of deeper understanding of shared decision making explains the suboptimal performance on crucial parts of it? An example from breast cancer care. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2019;38:92–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Stacey D, Hill S, McCaffery K, Boland L, Lewis KB, Horvat L. Shared decision making interventions: theoretical and empirical evidence with implications for health literacy. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;240:263–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Gillick MR. Re-engineering shared decision-making. J Med Ethics. 2015;41(9):785–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Volk RJ, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Stacey D, Elwyn G. Ten years of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration: evolution of the core dimensions for assessing the quality of patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:1.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Staveley I, Sullivan P. We need more guidance on shared decision making. Br J Gen Pract. 2015;65(641):663–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Légaré FAR, Stacey D, Turcotte S, KryworuchkoIan J, Lyddiatt GA, Politi MC, Thomson R, Elwyn G, Donner-Banzhoff N. Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7(7):CD006732.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Elwyn G, Frosch DL, Kobrin S. Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences. Implement Sci. 2016;11:114.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Agoritsas T, Heen AF, Brandt L, Alonso-Coello P, Kristiansen A, Akl EA, et al. Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens. BMJ. 2015;350:g7624.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Elwyn G, Lloyd A, Joseph-Williams N, Cording E, Thomson R, Durand MA, et al. Option Grids: shared decision making made easier. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90(2):207–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Holmes-Rovner M, Valade D, Orlowski C, Draus C, Nabozny-Valerio B, Keiser S. Implementing shared decision-making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities. Health Expect. 2000;3(3):182–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Wieringa TH, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Spencer-Bonilla G, de Wit M, Ponce OJ, Sanchez-Herrera MF, et al. Decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision making in chronic illnesses: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Bomhof-Roordink H, Gartner FR, Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH. Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e031763.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Hussain JA, Flemming K, Murtagh FE, Johnson MJ. Patient and health care professional decision-making to commence and withdraw from renal dialysis: a systematic review of qualitative research. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;10(7):1201–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Williams N, Fleming C, Doubleday A. Patient and provider perspectives on shared decision making: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature. J Comp Eff Res. 2017;6(8):683–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Pollard S, Bansback N, Bryan S. Physician attitudes toward shared decision making: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(9):1046–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Wyatt KD, List B, Brinkman WB, Prutsky Lopez G, Asi N, Erwin P, et al. Shared decision making in pediatrics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Pediatr. 2015;15(6):573–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Saheb Kashaf M, McGill ET, Berger ZD. Shared decision-making and outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(12):2159–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Muller E, Strukava A, Scholl I, Harter M, Diouf NT, Legare F, et al. Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e026488.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(1):114–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. WHO. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Geneva: WHO; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Balla M, Merugu GP, Patel M, Koduri NM, Gayam V, Adapa S, et al. COVID-19, modern pandemic: a systematic review from front-line health care providers’ perspective. J Clin Med Res. 2020;12(4):215–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Zeraatkar D, Han MA, Guyatt GH, Vernooij RWM, El Dib R, Cheung K, et al. Red and processed meat consumption and risk for all-cause mortality and cardiometabolic outcomes a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(10):703–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Naomi Cano-Ibáñez, Marta Maes-Carballo & Khalid Saeed Khan

  2. CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Naomi Cano-Ibáñez & Khalid Saeed Khan

  3. Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria de Granada (ibs.GRANADA), Granada, Spain

    Naomi Cano-Ibáñez

  4. Department of General Surgery, Complexo Hospitalario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain

    Marta Maes-Carballo

Authors
  1. Naomi Cano-Ibáñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marta Maes-Carballo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Khalid Saeed Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naomi Cano-Ibáñez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centre of Perinatal and Reproductive Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Gian Carlo Di Renzo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cano-Ibáñez, N., Maes-Carballo, M., Khan, K.S. (2022). Big Data, Metanalysis and Sistematic Reviews: The Jungle of Statistics. In: Di Renzo, G.C. (eds) Essential Writing, Communication and Narrative Skills for Medical Scientists Before and After the COVID Era . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84954-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84954-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84953-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84954-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation