Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2002

Open Access 01-12-2002 | Research article

Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy

Authors: Nancy G Berman, Robert A Parker

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2002

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Meta-analysis is often considered to be a simple way to summarize the existing literature. In this paper we describe how a meta-analysis resembles a conventional study, requiring a written protocol with design elements that parallel those of a record review.

Methods

The paper provides a structure for creating a meta-analysis protocol. Some guidelines for measurement of the quality of papers are given. A brief overview of statistical considerations is included. Four papers are reviewed as examples. The examples generally followed the guidelines we specify in reporting the studies and results, but in some of the papers there was insufficient information on the meta-analysis process.

Conclusions

Meta-analysis can be a very useful method to summarize data across many studies, but it requires careful thought, planning and implementation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Glass GV: Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976, 5: 3-8.CrossRef
2.
Lelorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F: Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1997, 337: 536-542. 10.1056/NEJM199708213370806.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Liberati A: "Meta-Analysis: Statistical Alchemy for the 21st Century": discussion. A plea for a more balanced view of meta-analysis and systematic overviews of the effect of health care interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995, 48: 81-86. 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00115-7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Bailar JC: The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med. 1997, 337: 559-561. 10.1056/NEJM199708213370810.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Dickersin K, Berlin JA: Meta-analysis: state-of-the-science. Epidemiol Rev. 1992, 14: 154-176.PubMed
6.
Thompson SG, Pocock SJ: Can meta-analyses be trusted?. Lancet. 1991, 338: 1127-1130. 10.1016/0140-6736(91)91975-Z.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
Kassirer JP: Clinical trials and meta-analysis. What do they do for us?. N Engl J Med. 1992, 327: 273-274.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Spitzer WO: Meta-meta-analysis: unanswered questions about aggregating data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991, 44: 103-107.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Thacker SB: Meta-analysis. A quantitative approach to research integration. JAMA. 1988, 259: 1685-1689. 10.1001/jama.259.11.1685.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000, 283: 2008-2012. 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Moher D, Olkin I: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A concern for standards. JAMA. 1995, 274: 1962-1964. 10.1001/jama.274.24.1962.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Olkin I: Meta-analysis: reconciling the results of independent studies. Stat Med. 1995, 14: 457-472.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Stein RA: Meta-analysis from one FDA reviewer's perspective. 1988 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association Biopharmaceutical Section. 1988, 34-38.
16.
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR: Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991, 337: 867-872. 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-Y.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Gillum LA, Mamidipudi SK, Johnston SC: Ischemic stroke risk with oral contraceptives: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2000, 284: 72-78. 10.1001/jama.284.1.72.CrossRefPubMed
18.
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: 374-378. 10.1001/jama.267.3.374.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J: Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias?. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995, 48: 159-163. 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00098-B.CrossRefPubMed
20.
L'Abbe KA, Detsky AS, O'Rouke K: Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med. 1987, 107: 224-233.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC: Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987, 316: 450-455.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbe KA: Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidem. 1992, 45: 225-265.CrossRef
23.
Chalmers TC, Levin H, Sacks HS, Reitman D, Berrier 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: 315-328.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Chalmers TC, Smith H, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, Ambroz A: A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials. 1981, 2: 31-49. 10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Gray A, Berlin JA, McKinlay JB, Longcope C: An examination of research design effects on the association of testosterone and male aging: results of a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991, 44: 671-684.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S: Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annoted bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials. 1995, 16: 62-73. 10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-W.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Hedges LV, Olkin I: Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. London: Academic Press. 1985
29.
Wolf FM: Meta-Analysis: Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 1986
30.
31.
Petitti DB: Approaches to heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2001, 20: 3625-3633. 10.1002/sim.1091.CrossRefPubMed
32.
DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986, 7: 177-188. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Berlin JA, Laird NM, Sacks HS, Chalmers TC: A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials. Stat Med. 1989, 8: 141-151.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Biggerstaff BJ, Tweedie RL: Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1997, 16: 753-768. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970415)16:7<753::AID-SIM494>3.3.CO;2-7.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Villar J, Mackey ME, Carroli G, Donner A: Meta-analyses in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine: comparison of fixed and random effects models. Stat Med. 2001, 20: 3635-3647. 10.1002/sim.1096.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Gleser LJ, Olkin I: Models for estimating the number of unpublished studies. Stat Med. 1996, 15: 2493-2507. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19961215)15:23<2493::AID-SIM381>3.0.CO;2-C.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Rosenthal R: The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bul. 1979, 86: 638-641. 10.1037//0033-2909.86.3.638.CrossRef
38.
Caubet JF, Tosteson TD, Dong EW, Naylon EM, Whiting GW, Ernstoff MS, Ross SD: Maximum androgen blockade in advanced prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials using nonsteroidal antiandrogens. Urology. 1997, 49: 71-78. 10.1016/S0090-4295(96)00325-1.CrossRefPubMed
39.
McAlindon TE, LaValley MP, Gulin JP, Felson DT: Glucosamine and chondriotin for treatment of osteoarthritis: a systematic quality assessment and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2000, 283: 1469-1475. 10.1001/jama.283.11.1469.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy
Authors
Nancy G Berman
Robert A Parker
Publication date
01-12-2002
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2002
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-10

Other articles of this Issue 1/2002

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2002 Go to the issue

Debate

The probability of cost-effectiveness

Debate

Meta-analysis, Simpson's paradox, and the number needed to treat

Research article

Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines

Research article

The transitive fallacy for randomized trials: If A bests B and B bests C in separate trials, is A better than C?

Research article

Are the Cochrane group registers comprehensive? A case study of Japanese psychiatry trials

Research article

Markers for early detection of cancer: Statistical guidelines for nested case-control studies