Meta Analysis – An Alternative to Large Trials

A large series of studies on the same treatment and for the same indication often include trials that lean one way while others go in the opposite direction and a few are just neutral. A relatively new statistical technique, the meta analysis, is seen as a hopeful method that can take a large body of studies and provide an overall assessment of a treatment effect. The technique, admired because of its ability to take many small trials and blend them into a consensus finding has its detractors as well. There are methodological issues such as accounting for unpublished studies, or the inclusion of published results that are of poor quality. The absence of individual patient data can also be a deterrent to a sound analysis. Examples of meta analyses cases illustrate where the method has provided useful revelations as well as questionable conclusions. In the end, however, because there is an incomplete understanding of the technique, caution is called for when interpreting the results from a meta analysis. There is clearly a need for meta analysts to educate the health care professions about the strengths and weaknesses of this promising technique.


Meta analysis publication bias research quality review article systematic review 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Chapter 15 — The Meta Analysis

Cited References

  1. Egger M, Smith G. Misleading meta-analysis. Br Med J 1995:310;752–754.Google Scholar
  2. Egger M, Smith G. Meta-analysis: potentials and promise. Br Med J 1997:315;1371–1374.Google Scholar
  3. Egger M, Smith G. Meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies. Br Med J 1998:316;51–66.Google Scholar
  4. Grady D. Medical journal cites misleading research. New York Times Nov 10, 1999:A18.Google Scholar
  5. LeLorier L, Grégoire G, Benhaddad A, et al. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. New Engl J Med 1997:337;536–542.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Simon S. Statistical evidence in medical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. Smith G, Egger M. Meta-analysis: unresolved issues and future developments. Br Med J 1998:316;221–225.Google Scholar

General References

  1. Clarke M, Stewart L. Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta-analyses? Br Med J 1994:309;1007–1010.Google Scholar
  2. Egger M, Smith G, Phillips A. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. Br Med J 1997:315;1533–1537.Google Scholar
  3. Egger M, Smith G, Altman D. (eds). Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: British Medical Journal Publishing Group, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. Egger M, Smith G, Sterne J. Uses and abuses of meta-analysis. Clinl Med 2001:1;478–484.Google Scholar
  5. Gerbarg Z, Horwitz R. Resolving conflicting clinical trials: guidelines for meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 41:5;503–509.Google Scholar
  6. Naylor C. Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research. Br Med J 1997:15;617–619.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Personalised recommendations