Meta-Analiz: Bir Derleme
Meta-analiz, birçok çalışmadaki verileri birleştirmek ve tedavi müdahalelerinin etkinliğini değerlendirmek için sık kullanılan bir istatistiksel tekniktir. Bağımsız çalışmalardan elde edilen sonuçları birleştirerek hem çalışmanın gücünü artırabilir (bireysel çalışmalara göre) hem de effect size tahminlerini iyileştirebilir. Meta-analiz yürütme süreçleri arasında bir protokol geliştirmek, makaleler seçmek, dahil edilme kriterleri geliştirmek, veri toplamak, veri analizi yapmak ve sonuçları yorumlamak bulunmaktadır. Meta-analizin önemli bir limitasyonu, sadece analiz için geri alınabilir verilere sahip ilgili çalışmaların dahil edilebilmesidir. Bu durum publication(yayin) bias için endişe yaratmaktadir. Meta-analizin, tıp literatürünü özetlerken önemli bilgiler sağlayabilecek tam olarak faydalı bir bilimsel yöntem olduğu oldukça açıktır. Bununla birlikte, dahil edilen araştırmaların araştırma sorusuyla aynı olmadığı veya farklı sonuç verileri topladığı takdirde yanıltıcı olabilir.
Meta-Analysis: A Review Article
Meta-analysis is a frequently used statistical technique which uses to combine data from severalstudies to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment interventions. By combining results from independent studies, we can both increase power of the study (over individual studies) and improveestimates of the size of the effect. The processes of conducting meta-analysis include developinga protocol, selecting articles, developing inclusion criteria, collecting data, data analysis andinterpreting results. A major limitation of the meta-analysis is that only relevant studies whichhave retrievable data can be included for analysis. This causes concern for publication bias. It isobvious that metaanalysis is a useful scientific method that can provide important informationwhen summarizing medical literature. However, there can be misleading if the studies includedare non-similar in their research question or collect different types of outcome data.
___
- Glasser SP. Essentials of Clinical Research. P:159-176.
Springer Science, 2008; 159-76.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8486-7_10
- Greenland S, O’ Rourke K. Meta-Analysis. Modern
Epidemiology, 3rd ed. Edited by Rothman KJ, Greenland
S, Lash T. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008; 652.
- Pearson K. Report on certain enteric fever inoculation
statistics. Bri Med J. 1904;3:1243-6.
- Beecher HK. The powerful placebo. J Am Med Assoc.
1955;159:1602-6.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1955.02960340022006
- “Archie Cochrane: The name behind Cochrane”. www.
cochrane.org. Cochrane Collaboration. 5 December
2013. Retrieved 10 September 2014.
- Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective
registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst
Rev. 2012;9:1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-7
- Arthur W, Bennett W, Huffcutt AI. Conducting MetaAnalysis Using SAS. Mahwah, N.J.: Psychology Press
2001.
- Fazalare JA, Griesser MJ, Siston RA, Flanigan DC. The
use of continuous passive motion following knee cartilage defect surgery: a systematic review. Orthopedics.
2010;33:878.
https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20101021-16
- Quatman CE, Quatman-Yates CC, Schmitt LC, Paterno
MV. The clinical utility and diagnostic performance of
MRI for identification and classification of knee osteochondritis dissecans. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:1036-
44.
https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.00275
- Mulla SM, Wang L, Khokhar R, et al. Management of
Central Poststroke Pain: Systematic Review of
Randomized Controlled Trials. Stroke. 2015;46:2853-
60.
https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.010259
- Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding
necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials. 1996;17:1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
- Dhammi IK, Haq RU. How to Write Systematic Review
or Metaanalysis. Indian J Orthop. 2018;52:575-7.
https://doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_557_18
- Dickersin, Min, & Meinert, 1992
- Hedges LV. Estimation of effect size under non-random
sampling: The effects of censoring studies yielding
statistically insignificant mean differences. Journal of
Educational Statistics. 1984;9:61-85.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1164832
- Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for
null results. Psychological Bulletin. 1979;86:638-41.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
- Greenwald AG. Consequences of prejudice against null
hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin. 1975;82:1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076157
- Coursol A, Wagner EE. Effect of positive findings on
submission and acceptance rates: A note on metaanalysis bias. Professional Psychology. 1986;17:136-7.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.17.2.136
- McLeod BD, Weisz JR. Using dissertations to examine
potential bias in child and adolescent clinical trials.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
2004;72:235-51.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.2.235
- Harris JD, Quatman CE, Manring MM, Siston RA,
Flanigan DC. How to write a systematic review. Am J
Sports Med. 2014;42:2761-8.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513497567
- Schulze R. Metaanalysis: A Comparison of Approaches.
Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber 2004.
- Jacobs A. A medical writer’s guide to meta-analysis.
Medical Writings. 2016;25:22-5.
- Komatsu R, Turan AM, Orhan-Sungur M, McGuire J,
Radke OC, Apfel CC. Remifentanil for general anaesthesia: a systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2007;62:1266-
80.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05221.x
- Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, et al. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Am
Fam Physician. 2004;69:548-56.
https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.17.1.59
- Grade Working Group. Grading of Recommendations
Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Available
at: http://www.gradeworkinggroup. org/ Accessed
January 20, 2013.
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses: the PRISMA statement. Clin Epidemiol.
2009;62:1006-12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
- Tovey D. Standards for the reporting of new Cochrane
Intervention Reviews. Version 1.1. December 17, 2012.
- Ferguson CJ, Brannick MT. Publication bias in psychological science: prevalence, methods for identifying and
controlling, and implications for the use of metaanalyses. Psychol Methods. 2012;17:120-8.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024445
- Brignardello-Petersen R. Important limitations in methods make systematic review assessing impact of
crown-to-implant ratio on treatment complications
not useful. J Am Dent Assoc. 2018;8177:30766-9.