How to interpret meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials

European Journal of Oral Implantology

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 61-67

  Nieri, Michele ^a   Glenny, Anne Marie ^b,c   Worthington, Helen ^b,c   Esposito, Marco ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

^b Evidence Based Oral Health   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Forest plot; Meta analysis; Randomised clinical trials

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; ODDS RATIO; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; RISK;

EID: 77953100542     PISSN: 17562406     EISSN: 17562414     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis. Edu Res 1976;5:3-8.
2. Pearson K. Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. Br Med J 1904;3:1243-1246.
3. Worthington HV, Esposito M, Nieri M, Glenny AM. What is a systematic review? Eur J Oral Implantol 2008;1:235-238.
4. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354(9193): 1896-1900.
5. Akobeng AK. Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child 2005;90:845-848.
6. Deeks JJ, Higginns JPT, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses: Chapter 9. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
7. Esposito M, Cannizzaro G, Bozzoli P, Consolo U, Felice P, Ferri V et al. Efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics for dental implants: a multicentre placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials. Eur J Oral Implantol 2008;1:23-31.
8. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D. Addressing reporting biases: Chapter 10. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
9. Rosenthal R. The 'file drawer problem' and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bul 1979;86:638-641.
10. Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies. Behav Brain Sci 1978;3:377-415.
11. Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1984.
12. Whitehead A. Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Chichester (UK): John Wiley and Sons, 2002.
13. Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J. In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:894-901.
14. Souza JP, Pileggi C, Cecatti JG. Assessment of funnel plot asymmetry and publication bias in reproductive health metaanalyses: an analytic survey. Reprod Health. 2007;4:3.
15. nd Edition, Philadelphia: American College of Physicians 2006.
16. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954;10:101-129.
17. Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 1998;17:841-856.
18. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat in Med 2002;21:1539-1558.
19. 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:79.
20. Hyde CJ, Stanworth SJ, Murphy MF. Can you see the wood for the trees? Making sense of forest plots in systematic reviews 2. Analysis of the combined results from the included studies. Transfusion 2008;48:580-583.
21. Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. Br Med J 2001;322:1479-1480.
22. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, Oliver R, Worthington HV. The efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis at placement of dental implants: a Cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials. Eur J Oral Implantol 2008;1 95-103.