Summarizing research findings: systematic review and meta-analysis
AbstractThe explosion of biomedical publishing makes keeping up with the primary studies an impossible task. The often disparate,confusing and contradicting findings of individual studies makes healthcare professionals turn to review articles whereknowledge has been collated and published in summaries. Narrative reviews lack rigorous, systematic and reproduciblesynthesis. In contrast, systematic reviews are conducted using systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and criticallyappraise relevant research, and to collect and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. The finalpathway for systematic review is a statistical summary of the results of primary studies, or meta-analysis. This article providessome guidelines to health care providers in understanding the key aspects of systematic review and meta-analysis. Stepsinvolved in systematic review are discussed. The potential pitfall of meta-analysis was also explored.
MEDLINE fact sheet. [Web Document]. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/medline.html. [Accessed on 12th March 2007]
Williamson JW, German PS, Weiss R, Skinner EA, and Bowes F. Health science information management and continuing education of physicians. A survey of U.S. primary care practitioners and their opinion leaders. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110(2):151-60.
Hunt RE, Newman RG. Medical knowledge overload: a disturbing trend for physicians. Health Care Manage Rev. 1997; 22(1):70-5.
Thacker SB. Meta-analysis: a qualitative approach to research integration. JAMA. 1988;259(11):1685-9.
Oxman A, Guyatt GH, Cook D, Montori V, Guyatt GH, Rennie D. User’s Guides to the Medical Literature. A Manual for Evidence-based Clinical Practice. Chicago, Ill: AMA Press; 2005. pp.155-73.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, O’Rourke K. Rational, potentials and promise of systematic reviews. In: Egger M, Davy Smith G, Altman DG (eds). Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. London: BMJ Books. 2001, pp. 23-42.
Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Systematic reviews of trials and other studies. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(19):1- 272.
Ferrer RL. Graphical methods for detecting bias in metaanalysis. Fam Med. 1998;30(8):579-83.
Eysenck HJ. An exercise in mega-silliness. Am Psychol. 1978;33:517.
Boden WE. Meta-analysis in clinical trials reporting: Has a tool become a weapon? Am J Cardiol. 1992;69(6):681-6.
Oakes M. Statistical inference: a commentary for the social and behavioral science. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1986.
Bailar JC. The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(8):559-61.
Nurmohamed MT, Rosendaal FR, Bueller HR, et al. Low molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis. Lancet 1992;340:152-6.
Leizorovicz A, Haugh MC, Chapuis FR, Samama MM, Boissel JP. Low molecular-weight heparin in prevention of perioperative thrombosis. BMJ. 1992;305:913-20.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Sterne JAC. Uses and abuses of meta-analysis. Clin Med. 2001;1(6):478-84.
Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic reviews. London, BMJ Press, 1995
Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:597-9.