Abstract
Distinguishing between a systematic review and meta-analysis is essential to understand the role each plays in presenting and analysing data and estimates of treatment effects. Often, novice researchers mistakenly use these terms synonymously. A thorough understanding of the similarities and differences between these two research methodologies is needed to appropriately evaluate the quality of conclusions emerging from such studies. The systematic review allows the researcher to synthesize and critically appraise a number of studies in a specific context to provide evidence-based conclusions. Comparatively, atop the hierarchical chain of evidence lies the meta-analysis, in which a systematic review is performed and then statistical methods are employed to quantitatively pool the results of a selected number of studies in a specific context. This design is a robust method of combined analysis and is therefore deemed the highest level of evidence when pooling high-quality randomized controlled trials. Understanding and appreciating the methodological differences in these two designs are elemental in planning, implementing, and evaluating high-quality research.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aslam S, Emmanuel P. Formulating a researchable question: a critical step for facilitating good clinical research. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS. 2010;31(1):47.
Brighton B, Bhandari M, Tornetta P, Felson DT. Hierarchy of evidence: from case reports to randomized controlled trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:19–24.
Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(1):305–10.
Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman D. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. Somerset: Wiley; 2013.
GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.
Green S, Higgins JP. Preparing a cochrane review. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions; 2012. p. 11–30.
Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1995;274(22):1800–4.
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.
Hopewell S, Mcdonald S, Clarke M, Egger M. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000010.
Jinha AE. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publ. 2010;23(3):258–63.
Kagoma YK, Crowther MA, Douketis J, Bhandari M, Eikelboom J, Lim W. Use of antifibrinolytic therapy to reduce transfusion in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery: a systematic review of randomized trials. Thromb Res. 2009;123(5):687–96.
Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–21.
Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine: how to review and apply findings of healthcare research. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press; 2003.
Khan M, Evaniew N, Bedi A, Ayeni OR, Bhandari M. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative tears of the meniscus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can Med Assoc J. 2014;186(14):1057–64.
Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(9):820.
Liberati A, Al tman DG, Tetzlaff J, Murlow C, Gøtzsche PC, Clarke M, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):W65–94.
Matthew EF, Eleni EP, George AM, Georgios P. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. Fed Am Soc Exp Biol. 2015;20 Sep 2007.
Mchugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med. 2012;22(3):276–82.
Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:62–73.
Pae C-U. Why systematic review rather than narrative review? Psychiatry Investig. 2015;12(3):417.
Russell RM. Issues and challenges in conducting systematic reviews to support development of nutrient reference values: workshop summary. Rockville: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009.
Santos JRA. Cronbach’s alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J Ext. 1999;37:2.
Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712–6.
Torgerson C. Systematic reviews. London: Continuum; 2003.
Uman LS. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;20(1):57–9.
Verhagen AP, Vet HCD, Bie RAD, Boers M, Brandt PAVD. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(7):651–4.
Weil RJ. The future of surgical research. PLoS Med. 2004;1(1):e13.
Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–9.
Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2015;8(1):2–10.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 ISAKOS
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Akhter, S., Pauyo, T., Khan, M. (2019). What Is the Difference Between a Systematic Review and a Meta-analysis?. In: Musahl, V., et al. Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_37
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58253-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58254-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)