Premium
Meta‐analysis or best‐evidence synthesis?
Author(s) -
Eysenck H.J.
Publication year - 1995
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.1995.tb00005.x
Subject(s) - safer , meta analysis , independence (probability theory) , psychological intervention , focus (optics) , best evidence , psychology , management science , risk analysis (engineering) , computer science , medicine , intensive care medicine , economics , nursing , mathematics , statistics , physics , computer security , optics
This article examines the usefulness of meta‐analysis, and articulates many of the criticisms that have been made of its workings. An attempt is made to outline the precautions that have to be taken before a scientifically useful and meaningful meta‐analysis can be carried out. The problems encountered include heterogeneity of samples, conditions, interventions and end‐points; narrow focus; curvilinearity of regression; lack of independence of determinants; synergistic interactions; contradictory experimental results. It is suggested that best‐evidence synthesis, or theorydirected analysis, might be a safer option.