The methods used in conducting a systematic review are specific and rigorous. true false
|
No AccessMaking Meaning of Data in Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research https://doi.org/10.21019/9781582123103.ch12 Abstract: Meta-analysis involves a set of statistical procedures used to integrate findings from multiple independent studies, usually with the goal of providing an estimate of treatment effectiveness or safety and examining factors that may lead to variation in treatment effectiveness or safety.1 Meta-analyses are often conducted in conjunction with a systematic review of the literature. Moreover, the quality of a meta-analysis hinges on the quality of the systematic review upon which the meta-analysis is based. References
 © 2019 by the American Pharmacists Association. All rights reserved.© 2018 by the American Pharmacists Association. All rights reserved Publisher American Pharmacists Association History
Citation Information (2018), "Chapter 12. Meta-Analysis," Making Meaning of Data in Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research https://doi.org/10.21019/9781582123103.ch12 1. Green S. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Singapore Med J. 2005;46:270–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 2. Ganeshkumar P, Arun Kumar S, Rajoura OP. Evaluation of computer usage in healthcare among private practitioners of NCT Delhi. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;169:960–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 3. Sackett D, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 4. Ried K. Interpreting and understanding meta-analysis graphs--a practical guide. Aust Fam Physician. 2006;35:635–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 6. Glasziou P, Vanderbroucke J, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ. 2004;328:39–41. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 7. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:376–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 8. Clarke M. The cochrane collaboration and systematic reviews. Br J Surg. 2007;94:391–2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 9. Published by CRD, University of York; 2009. Jan, Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, 2008. [Google Scholar] 10. Cochrane Primary Health Care Field, The Cochrane Library, The Cochrane Collaboration, 23rd Mar. 2012. [Last accessed on 2012 Apr 30]. Available from: http://www.cochraneprimarycare.org/welcome . 11. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976;5:3–8. [Google Scholar] 12. Goldman L, Feinstein AR. Anticoagulants and myocardial infarction. The problems of pooling, drowning, and floating. Ann Intern Med. 1979;90:92–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 13. Kassirer JP. Clinical trials and meta-analysis. What do they do for us? N Engl J Med. 1992;327:273–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 14. Kavale KA, Glass GV. Meta-analysis and the integration of research in special education. J Learn Disabil. 1981;14:531–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 15. An introduction to meta-analysis, Cochrane Collaboration open learning material for reviewers, Version 1.1, November. 2002. [Last accessed on 2013 Jan 15]. Available from: http://www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/html/mod3-2.htm . 16. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2009. [Last accessed on 2009 Sep]. Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org . 17. Sedgwick P. Meta-analyses I. [Last accessed on 2013 Jan 15];BMJ. 2011 342:d45. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d45 . [Google Scholar] 18. Greenhalgh T. Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) BMJ. 1997;315:672–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 19. Publication Bias, Cochrane Collaboration open learning material for reviewers, Version 1.1, November. 2002. [Last accessed on 2013 Jan 15]. Available from: http://www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/html/mod15-2.htm . 20. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. [Last accessed on 2012 Apr 30];PLoS Med. 2007 4:e78. Available from: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi% 2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040078 . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] |
