Abstract
Controlled long term open evaluation studies will be applied, if clinical trials are not feasible. Particularly, for the study of rare events, such studies have been published.
In the current chapter two open evaluation meta-analyses from our group will be reviewed. The first meta-analysis was homogeneous and robust. The scientific method was helpful to confirm its prior scientific question. The second meta-analysis was different. It only included studies either performed by internists or by pharmacists. The null-hypothesis was: no difference in outcome between one study and the other. In this meta-analysis heterogeneity was a benefit rather than pitfall, because the null-hypothesis was no heterogeneity, that, hopefully, could be rejected.
Reference
More background, theoretical and mathematical information of meta-analyses is given in Statistics applied to clinical studies 5th edition, Chaps. 32–34 and 48, Springer Heidelberg Germany, 2012, from the same authors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cleophas, T.J., Zwinderman, A.H. (2017). Meta-analysis of Observational Studies. In: Modern Meta-Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55895-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55895-0_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55894-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55895-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)