İLKER İNCE, Elif OZCİMEN, Alparslan TURAN

Meta-Analysis: A Review Article

Meta-analysis is a frequently used statistical technique which uses to combine data from several studies 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 improve estimates of the size of the effect. The processes of conducting meta-analysis include developing a protocol, selecting articles, developing inclusion criteria, collecting data, data analysis and interpreting results. A major limitation of the meta-analysis is that only relevant studies which have retrievable data can be included for analysis. This causes concern for publication bias. It is obvious that metaanalysis is a useful scientific method that can provide important information when summarizing medical literature. However, there can be misleading if the studies included are non-similar in their research question or collect different types of outcome data.

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.

PDF

___

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.