Premium
Interpretation of data from multiple trials: a critical review[Note 2. This review was requested for presentation at the Single ...]
Author(s) -
CONN H. O.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
journal of internal medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.625
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1365-2796
pISSN - 0954-6820
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2796.1997.118127000.x
Subject(s) - meta analysis , medicine , interpretation (philosophy) , field (mathematics) , management science , selection (genetic algorithm) , data science , quality (philosophy) , computer science , medical physics , epistemology , pathology , artificial intelligence , economics , philosophy , mathematics , pure mathematics , programming language
The objective was to review the current status of meta‐analysis, the process of combining the results of similar investigations, which was described in 1976. It has evolved rapidly, and thousands have already been published. Meta‐analysis may be performed in a narrative form or in the preferred statistical format, which is more rigorous and demanding. The criteria for designing and performing a meta‐analysis of high quality are presented and discussed in detail, including selection criteria, quality, biases and heterogeneity, both of component studies and of results. Critical reviews of meta‐analyses are presented. Examples are given from my own field – hepatology – and from my own research experience. Although meta‐analysis is simple in concept, it is complex in execution. If performed with insufficient insight or attention to detail, it may give ambiguous or erroneous results.