PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12884420

Research methods: managing primary study quality in meta-analyses.

Abstract

Meta-analyses synthesize multiple primary studies and identify patterns of relationships. Differences in primary study methodological quality must be addressed for meta-analysis to produce meaningful results. No single standard exists for addressing these quality variations. Quality measurement scales are fraught with development and application problems. Several strategies have been proposed to address quality. Researchers can set minimum levels for inclusion or require that certain quality attributes be present. An inclusive method is to weight effect sizes by quality scores. This allows the inclusion of diverse studies but relies on questionable quality measures. By considering quality an empirical question, meta-analysts can examine associations between quality and effect sizes and thus preserve the purpose of meta-analysis to systematically examine data. Researchers increasingly are combining strategies to overcome the limitations of using a single approach. Future work to develop valid measures of primary study quality dimensions will improve the ability of meta-analysis to inform research and nursing practice.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Vicki S Conn, Marilyn J Rantz. 2003. Research methods: managing primary study quality in meta-analyses.. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.10092

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Egger's regression test is often used to help detect publication bias in meta-analyses. However, the performance of this test and the usual funnel plot have been challenged particularly when the summary estimate is the natural log of the odds ratio (lnOR). OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of Egger's regression test with a regression test based on sample size (a modification of Macaskill's test) with lnOR as the summary estimate. DESIGN: Simulation of meta-analyses under a number of scenarios in the presence and absence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type I error rates (the proportion of false-positive results) for each regression test and their power to detect publication bias when it is present (the proportion of true-positive results). RESULTS: Type I error rates for Egger's regression test are higher than those for the alternative regression test. The alternative regression test has the appropriate type I error rates regardless of the size of the underlying OR, the number of primary studies in the meta-analysis, and the level of between-study heterogeneity. The alternative regression test has comparable power to Egger's regression test to detect publication bias under conditions of low between-study heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Because of appropriate type I error rates and reduction in the correlation between the lnOR and its variance, the alternative regression test can be used in place of Egger's regression test when the summary estimates are lnORs.

Meta-Analysis as Topic↗

A primer on reviewing and synthesizing evidence.

In this editorial, I shall describe methods commonly used for synthesizing evidence and review some contemporary examples of how this methodology has been applied to the peer-reviewed literature. It is my hope that the reader will find this interesting, but more importantly useful as you find yourself reading the evermore voluminous medical literature.

Meta-Analysis as Topic↗