Meta-analysis: Critical Appraisal

  • Kameshwar Prasad


This chapter deals with the critical appraisal of a meta-analysis of treatment studies that are randomised.


Point Estimate Acute Ischaemic Stroke Cochrane Review Forest Plot Magnesium Sulphate 
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.


  1. 1.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring of inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L’Abbe KA. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev. 1997;9 suppl 1:15–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Guyatt G, Rennie D, editors. User’s guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: AMA Press; 2002. ( Scholar
  4. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1054–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1998;317:1185–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352:609–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. A consumer’s guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:78–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ. 1997;315:640–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, Tyroler HA. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 1991;266:93–8.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