To identify studies for the matched analysis, we employed a search strategy in PubMed using the following search terms: AND (meta analysis ) OR meta-analysis AND ((((((cardiovascular) OR cardiovascular disease$) OR cardiology) OR heart disease$) OR coronary heart disease$) OR atherosclerosis) OR coronary artery disease$]. Search, Inclusion and Matching Strategies Lastly, we assessed the relationship between how frequently meta-analyses were cited as a function of whether and how the results between each matched pair differed. Third, we quantified the degree to which the two literatures differed in terms of summary effect size and statistical precision. Second, we wished to characterize the frequency with which the two literatures conflicted with each other, in terms of significant differences in the magnitude of effect sizes, shifts in the confidence intervals that would lead to differences in a reader’s interpretation of the results.
First, we wished to contrast the meta-analyses from the two literatures in terms of sample size, numbers of included subjects, date of publication, and the degree to which the studies included in each member of the pair overlapped.
non-Cochrane reviews we conducted a matched pair analysis, comparing pairs of meta-analyses from the Cochrane and non-Cochrane literatures that had examined the same set of interventions and outcomes. To contrast and assess the degree of concordance between Cochrane vs. Whether such methodological differences yield different results is an open question. Several studies provide empirical evidence that Cochrane reviews tend to be of higher quality, were less vulnerable to bias, acknowledged more limitations, and were generally more conservative in how the results were endorsed than non-Cochrane reviews. In theory, this might introduce systematic differences between the two. Reviews conducted within the Cochrane Collaboration follow a standardized set of methods that non-Cochrane reviews are not bound to. Not infrequently, two or more meta-analyses are independently published on the same topic, though such studies often fail to reference each other’s findings and may yield conflicting results. Because of its rigorous and analytic methodology, standardization of approaches, and transparency, the Cochrane Collaboration is often considered to be the gold standard for meta-analytic reviews, is deemed robust against bias, and is highly trusted by clinicians. As a result, in 1993, The Cochrane Collaboration was established to conduct meta-analytical reviews on health care related topics, specifically randomized trials, enabling physicians and other key decision-makers to access high-quality information on evidence-based results.
Systematic review vs meta analysis difference professional#
Cochrane believed that randomized controlled trials played a major role in the development of this evidence, but realized that there was no systematic way to disseminate results from randomized trials to the professional medical field. In 1972, Archie Cochrane expressed the need for higher quality empirical evidence around the development of health services. Reviews reporting an effect size at least 2-fold greater than their matched pair were cited more frequently. Non-Cochrane reviews reported significantly higher effect sizes (P< 0.001) and lower precision (P<0.001) than matched Cochrane reviews. Additionally, 20% differed in the direction of the summary effect size (5 pairs) or reported greater than a 2-fold difference in its magnitude (3 pairs). The most common involved shifts in the width of 95% confidence intervals that would yield a different statistical interpretation of the significance of results (7 pairs). Overall, 37.5% of pairs had discrepant results.
Stated another way, 62.5% of studies were only included in one or the other meta-analytic literature. The paired reviews included a total of 344 individual clinical trials: 111 (32.3%) studies were included only in a Cochrane review, 104 (30.2%) only in a non-Cochrane review, and 129 (37.5%) in both. The two sets were similar in terms of which was first to publication, how many studies were included, and average sample sizes. Our search yielded 40 matched pairs of reviews.
0 kommentar(er)
