Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research pp 331–342Cite as

What Is the Difference Between a Systematic Review and a Meta-analysis?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

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.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman D. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. Somerset: Wiley; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  5. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Green S, Higgins JP. Preparing a cochrane review. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions; 2012. p. 11–30.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jinha AE. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publ. 2010;23(3):258–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(9):820.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mchugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med. 2012;22(3):276–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pae C-U. Why systematic review rather than narrative review? Psychiatry Investig. 2015;12(3):417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Santos JRA. Cronbach’s alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J Ext. 1999;37:2.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Torgerson C. Systematic reviews. London: Continuum; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Uman LS. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;20(1):57–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Weil RJ. The future of surgical research. PLoS Med. 2004;1(1):e13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Shakib Akhter & Moin Khan

  2. Department of Health, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Shakib Akhter & Moin Khan

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Thierry Pauyo

Authors
  1. Shakib Akhter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thierry Pauyo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Moin Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shakib Akhter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. UPMC Rooney Sports Complex, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Volker Musahl

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Jón Karlsson

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland (Bruderholz, Laufen und Liestal), Bruderholz, Switzerland

    Michael T. Hirschmann

  4. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Olufemi R. Ayeni

  5. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Robert G. Marx

  6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA

    Jason L. Koh

  7. Institute for Medical Science in Sports, Osaka Health Science University, Osaka, Japan

    Norimasa Nakamura

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 ISAKOS

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation