Meta-analysis as evidence: Building a better pyramid

JAMA

Volumn 312, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 603-605

  Berlin, Jesse A ^a   Golub, Robert M ^b  

^a JOHNSON AND JOHNSON   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; EDITORIAL; EFFECT SIZE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SAFETY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SAMPLE SIZE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84905907124     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.8167     Document Type: Editorial

References (15)

1. Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
2. Hammad TA, Neyarapally GA, Pinheiro SP, Iyasu S, Rochester G, Dal Pan G. Reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with a focus on drug safety: an empirical assessment. Clin Trials. 2013;10(3):389-397.
3. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, et al. Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med. 2002;21(3):371-387. (Pubitemid 34144648)
4. Schmid CH, Stark PC, Berlin JA, Landais P, Lau J. Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(7):683-697. (Pubitemid 39195218)
5. Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA. 2007;298(10):1209-1212. (Pubitemid 47403108)
6. Deschartres A, Altman DG, Trinquart L, Boutron I, Ravaud R. Association between analytic strategy and estimates of treatment outcomes in meta-analyses. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.8166.
7. Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, Binder H, Schumacher M. Treatment-effect estimates adjusted for small-study effects via a limit meta-analysis. Biostatistics. 2011;12(1):122-142.
8. Moreno SG, Sutton AJ, Thompson JR, et al. A generalized weighting regression-derived meta-analysis estimator robust to small-study effects and heterogeneity. Stat Med. 2012;31(14):1407-1417.
9. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
10. LeLorier J, Grégoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(8):536-542. (Pubitemid 27352021)
11. Furukawa TA, Streiner DL, Hori S. Discrepancies among megatrials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(12):1193-1199. (Pubitemid 32007834)
12. Lundh A, Knijnenburg SL, Jørgensen AW, van Dalen EC, Kremer LCM. Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology-a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009;35(8):645-652.
13. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews [published online February 12, 2012]. Syst Rev. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-2.
14. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. EQUATOR website. http://www.equator-network.org/reporting- guidelines/prisma/. Accessed June 26, 2014.
15. Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook D, eds. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2008.