Meta-analyses: what they can and cannot do

Meta-analyses: what they can and cannot do

Blog Article

Meta-analyses overcome the limitation of small sample sizes or rare outcomes by pooling results from a number of individual studies to generate a single best estimate.As long as a meta-analysis is not limited by poor quality of included trials, unexplainable heterogeneity and/or reporting bias of individual trials, meta-analyses can be instrumental in reliably demonstrating benefit or harm of an intervention when results of individual randomised controlled trials are conflicting or inconclusive.Therefore meta-analyses should be conducted as part of a systematic review, i.e.

, a systematic approach to answer a focused clinical question.Important features of a systematic review are a comprehensive, reproducible search for primary studies, selection of studies using clear and transparent eligibility criteria, sergeant grit marine corps store standardised critical appraisal of studies for quality, and investigation of heterogeneity among included studies.Cumulative meta-analysis may prevent delays in the introduction of effective treatments and may allow for early detection of panc mix gheos harmful effects of interventions.As opposed to meta-analysis based on aggregate study data, individual patient data meta-analyses offer the advantage to use standardised criteria across trials and reliably investigate subgroup effects of interventions.

Network meta-analysis allows the integration of data from direct and indirect comparisons in order to compare multiple treatments in a comprehensive analysis and determine the best treatment among several options.We conclude that meta-analysis has become a popular, versatile, and powerful tool.If rigorously conducted as part of a systematic review, it is essential for evidence-based decision making in clinical practice as well as on the health policy level.