European Journal of Epidemiology

To inform evidence-based practice in health care, guidelines and policies require accurate identification, collation, and integration of all available evidence in a comprehensive, meaningful, and time-efficient manner. Approaches to evidence synthesis such as carefully conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential tools to summarize specific topics. Unfortunately, not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, and their quality can vary substantially. Since well-conducted evidence synthesis typically involves a complex set of steps, we believe formulating a cohesive, step-by-step guide on how to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis is essential. While most of the guidelines on systematic reviews focus on how to report or appraise systematic reviews, they lack guidance on how to synthesize evidence efficiently. To facilitate the design and development of evidence syntheses, we provide a clear and concise, 24-step guide on how to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and clinical trials. We describe each step, illustrate it with concrete examples, and provide relevant references for further guidance. The 24-step guide (1) simplifies the methodology of conducting a systematic review, (2) provides healthcare professionals and researchers with methodologically sound tools for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and (3) it can enhance the quality of existing evidence synthesis efforts. This guide will help its readers to better understand the complexity of the process, appraise the quality of published systematic reviews, and better comprehend (and use) evidence from medical literature.

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Background Single group data present unique challenges for synthesises of evidence. Proportional meta-analysis is becoming an increasingly common technique employed for the synthesis of single group data. Proportional meta-analysis shares many similarities with the conduct and reporting of comparative, or pairwise, meta-analysis. While robust and comprehensive methods exist detailing how researchers can conduct a meta-analysis that compares two (or more) groups against a common intervention, there is a scarcity of methodological guidance available to assist synthesisers of evidence in the conduct, interpretation, and importance of proportional meta-analysis in systematic reviews. Main body This paper presents an overview targeted to synthesisers of evidence and systematic review authors that details the methods, importance, and interpretation of a proportional meta-analysis. We provide worked examples of how proportional meta-analyses have been conducted in research syntheses previo...

Nature, 2018

Annual Review of Public Health, 1996

Synthesis of research findings has long been a part of reviewing and summarizing a field of study. Public health decisions are made on the available evidence. We summarize the approaches to research synthesis that draw on the best available evidence and the use of quantitative summaries through meta-analysis. We focus on observational studies. Heterogeneity offers the potential to observe a relation across study populations and circumstances. We emphasize the benefits of heterogeneity in overviews and the need to explore and describe the sources of heterogeneity. Random effects approaches to combining data are recommended, and the use of regression approaches is emphasized. Excluding studies with extreme results may bias a research synthesis and underestimate the true variance of the results, thus contributing to misleading inference. Thorough searching is the best guard against publication bias. We conclude with guidelines for combining epidemiological studies.

The Journal of Clinical Hypertension, 2014

The practice of evidence-based medicine requires physicians to be familiar with the most relevant research published in the medical literature. 1 Individual randomized clinical trials are well suited to provide compelling evidence of an intervention's therapeutic benefit. However, it has become very difficult (arguably impossible) for physicians to read every publication of relevance to their particular specialty. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have therefore become increasingly important. Systematic reviews are descriptive in nature, and "collate, compare, discuss, and summarize the current results" in a particular field. 4 Meta-analysis goes a step further, providing us with a statistical technique to combine results from multiple individual trials and then use this dataset to conduct a new analysis that we could not conduct on the basis of any of the individual trial's datasets.

Elsevier eBooks, 2023

Swiss Medical Weekly, 2012

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, 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 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.

British Journal of Surgery, 2000

S u m m a r y B a c k g r o u n d The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Journal of Gene Medicine, 2021

With the explosive growth of medical information, it is almost impossible for healthcare providers to review and evaluate all relevant evidence to make the best clinical decisions. Meta‐analyses, which summarize all existing evidence and quantitatively synthesize individual studies, have become the best available evidence for informing clinical practice. This article introduces the common methods, steps, principles, strengths and limitations of meta‐analyses and aims to help healthcare providers and researchers obtain a basic understanding of meta‐analyses in clinical practice and research.

BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2011

Background Cochrane systematic reviews collate and summarise studies of the effects of healthcare interventions. The characteristics of these reviews and the meta-analyses and individual studies they contain provide insights into the nature of healthcare research and important context for the development of relevant statistical and other methods. Methods We classified every meta-analysis with at least two studies in every review in the January 2008 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) according to the medical specialty, the types of interventions being compared and the type of outcome. We provide descriptive statistics for numbers of meta-analyses, numbers of component studies and sample sizes of component studies, broken down by these categories. Results We included 2321 reviews containing 22,453 meta-analyses, which themselves consist of data from 112,600 individual studies (which may appear in more than one meta-analysis). Meta-analyses in the areas of gyna...