Skip to main content

Meta-analysis of Observational Studies

Meta-analyzing Rare Diseases

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Modern Meta-Analysis

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics