Revista Mexicana de Oftalmología

Register      Login

VOLUME 94 , ISSUE 6E ( November-December, 2020 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Meta-analysis: Conceptual bases, statistical analysis and interpretation

Christian Fau, Solange Nabzo

Keywords : Systematic reviews, Meta-analysis, EBM, Heterogeneity, Publication bias, Evidence-based medicine, Literature search, Sensitivity analyses, Subgroup analysis

Citation Information : Fau C, Nabzo S. Meta-analysis: Conceptual bases, statistical analysis and interpretation. 2020; 94 (6E):236-248.

DOI: 10.24875/RMOE.M20000130

License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Published Online: 09-11-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020 Sociedad Mexicana de Oftalmología. Published by Permanyer


Abstract

The term meta-analysis was first used by G.V. Glass in 1976 in an article called “Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of investigations” (“Primaria, secundaria y meta-análisis de la investigación”). He used this term to refer to the statistical analysis of all the results obtained in different clinical studies regarding the same subject and that were to be analyzed together. At the beginning, this type of analysis was mainly used for the examination of social studies and psychology investigations, but later, during the 1980s, it became a popular method used in medicine; particularly in the cardiovascular, cancer and perinatal specialties. Nowadays it is not rare to find several medical articles using this method. For this study we decided to perform a meta-analysis and also combine the results of the studies because when the sample size increases, the statistical potential increases as well. Furthermore, when including studies and researches performed in different Health Centers, the results obtained can be easily generalized. Nevertheless, the meta-analysis method has its controversies, many of them due to an excessive use of the method together with a lack of methodological rigor; there are many limitations to be considered when evaluating the results of a meta-analysis. In this article we will focus mainly on the statistical aspects of the subject, from the point of view of the description of the methods, indications and interpretations, without specifying other details such as the protocols for carrying out a systematic review or statistical formulas. The focus will be on the analytical methods used in meta-analyses of controlled clinical trials evaluating therapeutic efficacy or adverse reactions.


PDF Share
  1. Oxman A, Cook D, Guyatt G. The Evidence Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;272:1367-71.
  2. Davidoff F, Haynes B, Sackett D, Smith R. Evidence based medicine. BMJ. 1995;310:1085-6.
  3. Sackett D, Straus S, Richardson W, Rosenberg W, Haynes R. Evidence - Based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
  4. Guyatt G, Rennie D. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature. A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Chicago: AMA Press, 2002.
  5. Egger M, Smith G, Altman D. Systematic Reviews in Health Care. Meta- analysis in context. London: BMJ; 2001.
  6. Smith M, Glass G. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist. 1977;32:752-60.
  7. Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, traductores. Manual Cochrane de Revisiones Sistemáticas de Intervenciones, versión 5.1.0 [Internet]. Barcelona: Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano; 2012. Disponible en: https://es. cochrane.org/sites/es.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/manual_cochrane_510_web.pdf
  8. Moher D, Cook D, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D; for the QUOROM group. Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900.
  9. Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche P, Ioannidis J, et al., and the PRISMA Group. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6: e1000100. Epub 2009 Jul 21.
  10. Urrutia G, Bonfill X. Declaración PRISMA: una propuesta para mejorar la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis. Med Clin (Barc). 2010;135: 507-11.
  11. Fau C, Nabzo S, Nasabun V. Metaanálisis en red. Rev Mex Oftalmol. 2018;92(3):153-9. Disponible en: https://www.rmo.com.mx/frame_esp.php?id=47.
  12. Turner A, Rabiu M. Patching for corneal abrasion. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 2. Art. No.:CD004764. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004764.pub2.
  13. Egger M, Davey S, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-34.
  14. Higgins J, Thompson S. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11):1539-58.
  15. Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D. Measuring inconsistency in meta−analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557-60.
  16. 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):536-42.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.