Advertisement

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Fundamental Concepts

  • Kameshwar Prasad
Chapter

Abstract

The term ‘meta-analysis’ was first used by Gene Glass in his presidential address to the American Educational Research Association in 1976. He distinguished it from primary analysis (analysis of original data in a research study, usually carried out under the direction of those who designed the study) and secondary analysis (reanalysis of the data with better statistical techniques usually carried out by someone not involved in the design of the original study). Meta-analysis, according to Glass, is a statistical analysis of summary results of individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings. It may be noted, however, that the idea of combining results from separate studies can be identified as early as 1904 when Pearson first used data pooling. In 1932, Sir Ronald Fisher reported on combining P values. Gene Glass advanced the field by making original and groundbreaking contributions.

Keywords

Systematic Review Heart Attack Random Effect Model Fixed Effect Model Individual Patient Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Mason JW, Peters FA. Antiarrhythmic efficacy of encainide in patients with refractory recurrent ventricular tachycardia. Circulation. 1981;63:670–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:781–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prasad K, Shrivastava A. A surgery for primary supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage (Cochrane review). In: The Cochrane Library, issue 4. Oxford: Update Software; 2000.Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Cooper HM, Rosenthal R. Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychol Bull. 1980;87:442–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Counsell CE, Clarke MJ, Slattery J, Sandercock PA. The miracle of DICE therapy for acute stroke: fact or fictional product of subgroup analysis? BMJ. 1994;309:1677–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990;263:1385–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2000.Google Scholar
  5. Guyatt G, Rennie D, editors. User’s guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: AMA Press; 2002. (www.ama-assn.org).Google Scholar
  6. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:667–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:125–33; discussion 133–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Peto R. Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials? Stat Med. 1987;6:233–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kameshwar Prasad
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Neurology Neurosciences Centre, and Clinical Epidemiology UnitAll India Institute of Medical SciencesNew Delhi DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations