Home  ›  What Is the Difference Between Meta Analysis and Systematic Review

What Is the Difference Between Meta Analysis and Systematic Review

Written By Tuesday, April 19, 2022 Add Comment Edit

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 handling furnishings. Often, novice researchers mistakenly utilize these terms synonymously. A thorough understanding of the similarities and differences betwixt 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 prove-based conclusions. Comparatively, atop the hierarchical chain of evidence lies the meta-analysis, in which a systematic review is performed so statistical methods are employed to quantitatively puddle 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 bear witness when pooling high-quality randomized controlled trials. Understanding and affectionate the methodological differences in these ii designs are elemental in planning, implementing, and evaluating high-quality research.

References

  1. Aslam S, Emmanuel P. Formulating a researchable question: a disquisitional step for facilitating good clinical research. Indian J Sexual practice Transm Dis AIDS. 2010;31(1):47.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar

  2. Brighton B, Bhandari One thousand, Tornetta P, Felson DT. Hierarchy of evidence: from instance reports to randomized controlled trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:19–24.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar

  3. Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of show and their part in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(1):305–10.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar

  4. Egger 1000, Davey-Smith G, Altman D. Systematic reviews in health intendance: meta-assay in context. Somerset: Wiley; 2013.

    Google Scholar

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar

  6. Light-green Southward, Higgins JP. Preparing a cochrane review. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions; 2012. p. 11–xxx.

    Google Scholar

  7. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ. Users' guides to the medical literature. Nine. A method for grading health care recommendations. Testify-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1995;274(22):1800–4.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar

  9. Hopewell S, Mcdonald South, Clarke G, Egger Thousand. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of wellness intendance interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000010.

    Google Scholar

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar

  11. Kagoma YK, Crowther MA, Douketis J, Bhandari M, Eikelboom J, Lim West. 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.

    CAS  CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar

  13. Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes One thousand. Systematic reviews to back up prove-based medicine: how to review and apply findings of healthcare research. London: Royal Social club of Medicine Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar

  14. Khan Yard, Evaniew N, Bedi A, Ayeni OR, Bhandari M. Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative tears of the meniscus: a systematic review and meta-assay. Can Med Assoc J. 2014;186(14):1057–64.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar

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

    CAS  CrossRef  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(iv):W65–94.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar

  17. Matthew EF, Eleni EP, George AM, Georgios P. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Spider 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar

  19. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh South. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Command Clin Trials. 1995;16:62–73.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar

  21. Russell RM. Problems and challenges in conducting systematic reviews to support development of nutrient reference values: workshop summary. Rockville: U.Due south. Dept. of Health and Homo Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009.

    Google Scholar

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

    Google Scholar

  23. Slim K, Nini Due east, 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–half-dozen.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar

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

    Google Scholar

  25. Uman LS. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Tin 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 fine art of quality cess of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(7):651–four.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar

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

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar

  29. Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, Zhang C, Li S, Lord's day F, et al. The methodological quality cess 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–x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

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

    Shakib Akhter & Moin Khan

  2. Section of Health, Prove, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Shakib Akhter & Moin Khan

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

    Thierry Pauyo

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shakib Akhter .

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 ISAKOS

Nigh this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this affiliate

Akhter, South., Pauyo, T., Khan, G. (2019). What Is the Difference Between a Systematic Review and a Meta-analysis?. In: , et al. Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_37

Download commendation

  • .RIS
  • .ENW
  • .BIB

  • DOI : https://doi.org/x.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_37

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-iii-662-58253-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-iii-662-58254-1

  • eBook Packages: Medicine Medicine (R0)

dyerduat1949.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_37

0 Response to "What Is the Difference Between Meta Analysis and Systematic Review"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel