scholarly journals Meta-analysis: Statistical Trickery or Sound Science?

2012 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-14
Author(s):  
Zahra Sohani
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Meta Analysis

ABSTRACT The goal of a systematic review is to present a balanced summary of existing research. In order to accomplish this, systematic reviews include a thorough search of relevant articles, including published and unpublished, using explicitly defined and reproducible criteria. The main rationale for conducting a meta-analysis comes from the fact that combining individual studies provide an increased sample size, which consequently improves the statistical power to detect treatment effect. If all steps outlined are followed properly and authors remain transparent regarding the design and conduct of the meta-analysis, this technique provides an excellent and scientifically sound means of synthesizing evidence. How to cite this article Sohani Z. Meta-analysis: Statistical Trickery or Sound Science? J Postgrad Med Edu Res 2012; 46(1):12-14.

scholarly journals ACCURACY OF CARDIOVASCULAR TRIAL OUTCOME ASCERTAINMENT AND TREATMENT EFFECT ESTIMATES FROM ROUTINE HEALTH DATA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (18) ◽  
pp. 187
Author(s):  
Craig Rodrigues ◽  
Ayodele Odutayo ◽  
Sagar Patel ◽  
Arnav Argarwal ◽  
Bruno Roza da Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Trial Outcome

scholarly journals Systematic review protocol to assess artificial intelligence diagnostic accuracy performance in detecting acute ischaemic stroke and large-vessel occlusions on CT and MR medical imaging

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e043665
Author(s):  
Srinivasa Rao Kundeti ◽  
Manikanda Krishnan Vaidyanathan ◽  
Bharath Shivashankar ◽  
Sankar Prasad Gorthi
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Acute Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Large Vessel ◽  
Sufficient Data

IntroductionThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) to support the diagnosis of acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) could improve patient outcomes and facilitate accurate tissue and vessel assessment. However, the evidence in published AI studies is inadequate and difficult to interpret which reduces the accountability of the diagnostic results in clinical settings. This study protocol describes a rigorous systematic review of the accuracy of AI in the diagnosis of AIS and detection of large-vessel occlusions (LVOs).Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of AI models for diagnosing AIS and detecting LVOs. We will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols guidelines. Literature searches will be conducted in eight databases. For data screening and extraction, two reviewers will use a modified Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies checklist. We will assess the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies guidelines. We will conduct a meta-analysis if sufficient data are available. We will use hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves to estimate the summary operating points, including the pooled sensitivity and specificity, with 95% CIs, if pooling is appropriate. Furthermore, if sufficient data are available, we will use Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations profiler software to summarise the main findings of the systematic review, as a summary of results.Ethics and disseminationThere are no ethical considerations associated with this study protocol, as the systematic review focuses on the examination of secondary data. The systematic review results will be used to report on the accuracy, completeness and standard procedures of the included studies. We will disseminate our findings by publishing our analysis in a peer-reviewed journal and, if required, we will communicate with the stakeholders of the studies and bibliographic databases.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020179652.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol examining the clinical characteristics and epidemiological features of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemond Qian-Xiu Tan ◽  
Wai Tak Victor Li ◽  
Wing-Zi Shum ◽  
Sheung Chit Chu ◽  
Hang-Long Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Protocol

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused recurring and major outbreaks in multiple human populations around the world. The plethora of clinical presentations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been described extensively, of which olfactory dysfunction (OD) was established as an important and common extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on peer-reviewed articles which described clinical data of OD in COVID-19 patients. Methods This research protocol has been prospectively registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020196202). CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed, as well as Chinese medical databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and WANFANG, will be searched using keywords including ‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus disease’, ‘2019-nCoV’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘novel coronavirus’, ‘anosmia’, ‘hyposmia’, ‘loss of smell’, and ‘olfactory dysfunction’. Systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles will be screened according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to extract studies that include new clinical data investigating the effect of COVID-19 on olfactory dysfunction. Included articles will be reviewed in full; data including patient demographics, clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD, methods of olfactory assessment and relevant clinical outcomes will be extracted. Statistical analyses will be performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will aim to collate and synthesise all available clinical evidence regarding COVID-19-related OD as an important neurosensory dysfunction of COVID-19 infection. A comprehensive search strategy and screening process will be conducted to incorporate broad clinical data for robust statistical analyses and representation. The outcome of the systematic review and meta-analysis will aim to improve our understanding of the symptomatology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD and identify knowledge gaps in its disease process, which will guide future research in this specific neurosensory defect. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196202.

scholarly journals Brief Psychotherapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Nieuwsma ◽  
Ranak B. Trivedi ◽  
Jennifer McDuffie ◽  
Ian Kronish ◽  
Dinesh Benjamin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Brief Psychotherapy ◽  
Problem Solving Therapy

Objective: Because evidence-based psychotherapies of 12 to 20 sessions can be perceived as too lengthy and time intensive for the treatment of depression in primary care, a number of studies have examined abbreviated psychotherapy protocols. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of brief psychotherapy (i.e., < 8 sessions) for depression. Methods: We used combined literature searches in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and an Internet-accessible database of clinical trials of psychotherapy to conduct two systematic searches: one for existing systematic reviews and another for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Included studies examined evidence-based psychotherapy(s) of eight or fewer sessions, focused on adults with depression, contained an acceptable control condition, were published in English, and used validated measures of depressive symptoms. Results: We retained 2 systematic reviews and 15 RCTs evaluating cognitive behavioral therapy, problem-solving therapy, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. The systematic reviews found brief psychotherapies to be more efficacious than control, with effect sizes ranging from −0.33 to −0.25. Our meta-analysis found six to eight sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy to be more efficacious than control (ES −0.42, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.10, I2 = 56%). A sensitivity analysis controlled for statistical heterogeneity but showed smaller treatment effects (ES −0.24, 95% CI −0.42 to −0.06, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Depression can be efficaciously treated with six to eight sessions of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioral therapy and problem-solving therapy. Access to non-pharmacologic treatments for depression could be improved by training healthcare providers to deliver brief psychotherapies.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Revascularisation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

Systematic Reviews are Rarely Used to Inform Study Design - a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgitte Nørgaard ◽  
Eva Draborg ◽  
Jane Andreasen ◽  
Carsten Bogh Juhl ◽  
Jennifer Yost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals The prevalence of sleep disturbances among physicians and nurses facing the COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Salari ◽  
Habibolah Khazaie ◽  
Amin Hosseinian-Far ◽  
Hooman Ghasemi ◽  
Masoud Mohammadi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Medical Staff ◽  
Sleep Disturbances ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Workplace Stress ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Nurses And Physicians ◽  
As Stress

Abstract Background In all epidemics, healthcare staff are at the centre of risks and damages caused by pathogens. Today, nurses and physicians are faced with unprecedented work pressures in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in several psychological disorders such as stress, anxiety and sleep disturbances. The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of sleep disturbances in hospital nurses and physicians facing the COVID-19 patients. Method A systematic review and metanalysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. The PubMed, Scopus, Science direct, Web of science, CINHAL, Medline, and Google Scholar databases were searched with no lower time-limt and until 24 June 2020. The heterogeneity of the studies was measured using I2 test and the publication bias was assessed by the Egger’s test at the significance level of 0.05. Results The I2 test was used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the selected studies, based on the results of I2 test, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians is I2: 97.4% and I2: 97.3% respectively. After following the systematic review processes, 7 cross-sectional studies were selected for meta-analysis. Six studies with the sample size of 3745 nurses were examined in and the prevalence of sleep disturbances was approximated to be 34.8% (95% CI: 24.8-46.4%). The prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians was also measured in 5 studies with the sample size of 2123 physicians. According to the results, the prevalence of sleep disturbances in physicians caring for the COVID-19 patients was reported to be 41.6% (95% CI: 27.7-57%). Conclusion Healthcare workers, as the front line of the fight against COVID-19, are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of this disease than other groups in society. Increasing workplace stress increases sleep disturbances in the medical staff, especially nurses and physicians. In other words, increased stress due to the exposure to COVID-19 increases the prevalence of sleep disturbances in nurses and physicians. Therefore, it is important for health policymakers to provide solutions and interventions to reduce the workplace stress and pressures on medical staff.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document