Methods of meta-analysis: An analysis

Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 467-474

  Koretz, Ronald L ^a,b  

^a OLIVE VIEW UCLA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; DATA ANALYSIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; META ANALYSIS; NUTRITIONAL SUPPORT; PARENTERAL NUTRITION; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CLINICAL TRIALS; COHORT STUDIES; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE;

EID: 0036729707     PISSN: 13631950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00075197-200209000-00003     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312:71-72,
2. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106:485-488.
3. McAlister FA, Clark HD, van Walraven C, et al. The medical review article revisited: has the science improved? Ann Intern Med 1999; 131:947-951.
4. Dickersin K, Hewitt P, Mutch L, et al. Perusing the literature: comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal trials database. Cont Clin Trials 1985; 6:306-317.
5. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994; 309:1286-1291.
6. Tran ZV, Weltman A. Differential effects of exercise on serum lipid and lipoprotein levels seen with changes in body weight: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1985; 254:919-924.
7. McManus RJ, Wilson S, Delaney BC, et al. Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews. BMJ 1998; 317:1562-1563.
8. Avenell A, Handoll HHG, Grand AM. Lessons for search strategies from a systematic review, in the Cochrane Library, of nutritional supplementation trials in patients after hip fracture. Am J Clin Nutr 2001; 73:505-510. A summary of the problems encountered in searching the literature, especially computer searching.
9. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273:408-412.
10. Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, et al. Publication bias and clinical trials. Cont Clin Trials 1987; 8:343-353.
11. Dickersin K, Min Y-I, Meinen CL. Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992; 267:374-378.
12. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337:867-872.
13. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 1997; 315:640-645.
14. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315:629-634.
15. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analysis? Lancet 2000; 356:1228-1231.
16. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998; 317:1185-1190.
17. Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med 1982; 72:233-240.
18. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135:982-989. Insights into the issue of the quality of randomized trials.
19. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H, Kuebler RR. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. N Engl J Med 1978; 299:690-694.
20. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. Lancet 2002; 359:696-700. Discussion of the issues involved in blinding.
21. Schoenfeld P, Cook D, Hamilton F, et al. An evidence-based approach to gastroenterology therapy. Gastroenterology 1998; 114:1318-1325.
22. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis: survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1999; 319:670-674.
23. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analysis? Lancet 1998; 352:609-613.
24. Juni P, Witschi A, Block R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999; 282:1054-1060.
25. Lelorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, et al. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:536-542.
26. Villar J, Carroli G, Belizan JM. Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 1995; 345:772-776.
27. Health and Public Policy Committee, American College of Physicians. Perioperative parenteral nutrition. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107:252-253.
28. Detsky AS, Baker JP, O'Rourke K, Goel V. Perioperative parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107:195-203.
29. American College of Physicians. Parenteral nutrition in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med 1989; 110:734-736.
30. McGeer AJ, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Parenteral nutrition in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a meta-analysis. Nutrition 1990; 6:233-240.
31. American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: parenteral nutrition. Gastroenterology 2001; 121:966-969. Example of recommendations being made from a systematic review of the evidence.
32. Koretz RL, Lipman TO, Klein S. AGA technical review on parenteral nutrition. Gastroenterology 2001; 121:970-1001. Systematic review indicating that a commonly employed medical practice is largely ineffective or even harmful.
33. Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, Detsky AS, Baker JP. Parenteral nutrition with branched-chain amino acids in hepatic encephalopathy: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 1989; 97:1033-1042.
34. O'Morain C, Segal AW, Levi AJ. Elemental diet as primary treatment of acute Crohn's disease: a controlled trial. BMJ 1984; 288:1859-1862.
35. Saverymuttu S, Hodgson HJF, Chadwick VS. Controlled trial comparing prednisolone with an elemental diet plus non-absorbable antibiotics in active Crohn's disease. Gut 1985; 26:994-998.
36. Sanderson IR, Udeen S, Davies PSW, et al. Remission induced by an elemental diet in small bowel Crohn's disease. Arch Dis Child 1987; 62:123-127.
37. O'Keefe SJD, Ogden J, Rund J, Potter P. Steroids and bowel rest versus elemental diet in the treatment of patients with Crohn's disease: the effects on protein metabolism and immune function. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1989; 13:455-460.
38. Malchow H, Steinhardt HJ, Lorenz-Meyer H, et al. Feasibility and effectiveness of a defined-formula diet regimen in treating active Crohn's disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 1990; 25:235-244.
39. Lochs H, Steinhardt HJ, Klaus-Wentz B, et al. Comparison of enteral nutrition and drug treatment in active Crohn's disease. Gastroenterology 1991; 101:881-888.
40. Griffiths AM, Ohlsson A, Sherman PM, Sutherland LR. Meta-analysis ot enteral nutrition as a primary treatment of active Crohn's disease, Gastroenterology 1995; 108:1056-1067.
41. Fernandez-Banares F, Cabre E, Esteve-Comas M, Gassull MA. How effective is enteral nutrition in inducing clinical remission in active Crohn's disease? A meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1995; 19:356-364.
42. Messori A, Trallori G, D'Albasio G, et al. Defined-formula diets versus steroids in the treatment of active Crohn's disease: a meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 1996; 31:267-272.
43. Heyland DK, MacDonald S, Keefe L, Drover JW. Total parenteral nutrition in the critically ill patient. JAMA 1998; 280:2013-2019.
44. Potter J, Langhorne P, Roberts M. Routine protein energy supplementation in adults: systematic review. BMJ 1998; 317:495-501.
45. Moore FA, Feliciano DV, Andrassy RJ, et al. Early enteral feeding, compared with parenteral, reduces postoperative septic complications: the results of a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 1992; 216:172-183.
46. Cochrane Injuries Group Albumin Reviewers. Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1998; 317:235-240.
47. Wilkes MM, Navickis RJ. Patient survival after human albumin administration: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135:149-164. Meta-analysis failing to agree with another meta-analysis asking the same question (Ref. [46]).
48. Heys SD, Walker LG, Smith I, Eremin O. Enteral nutritional supplementation with key nutrients in patients with critical illness and cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 1999; 229:467-477.
49. Beale RJ, Bryg DJ, Bihari DJ. Immunonutrition in the critically ill: a systematic review of clinical outcome. Crit Care Med 1999; 27:2799-2805.
50. Heyland DK, Novak F, Drover JW, et al. Should immunonutrition become routine in critically ill patients? A systematic review of the evidence. JAMA 2001; 286:944-953. Meta-analysis comparing an immunonutrient diet with a control group receiving a form of nutritional therapy that has not been shown to be at least the equivalent of no nutritional therapy.
51. Braunschweig CL, Levy P, Sheean PM, Wang X. Enteral compared with parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 2001; 74:534-542. Meta-analysis comparing two forms of nutritional therapy.
52. Lewis SJ, Egger M, Sylvester PA, Thomas S. Early enteral feeding versus 'nil by mouth' after gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. BMJ 2001; 434:773-776. Meta-analysis combining studies that were asking two fundamentally different questions.
53. Levin A. The Cochrane Collaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135:309-312. Description of the Cochrane Collaboration.
54. Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J, et al. Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ 2001; 323:829-832. Assessment of the quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews.