PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8692168

Meta-analysis: an update.

Abstract

A fairly new type of research, termed meta-analysis, attempts to analyze and combine the results of previous reports. In 1992 we updated our 1987 survey of 86 meta-analyses of randomized control trial reports in the english language literature with an additional 78. We evaluated the quality of these meta-analyses using a scoring method that lists 23 items in six major areas: study design, combinability, control of bias, statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and application of results. Of the 23 individual items, the mean number satisfactorily addressed was 7.63 +/- 2.84 (mean +/- S.D.) for 40 papers published from 1955 through 1982, 6.80 +/- 3.86 for 66 papers published from 1983 through 1986, and 11.91 +/- 4.79 for 58 papers published from 1987 through 1990 (F = 31.3, p < .001). We noted that methodology has definitely improved since our first survey of meta-analyses, but an urgent need still exists for a better search of the literature, quality evaluation of trials, and a synthesis of the results. Recently, meta-analysis has expanded to cover non-randomized studies, including evaluation of diagnostic tests and pooling of epidemiologic studies. There is growing concern for standards, and several methodologic issues remain unresolved.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H S Sacks, D Reitman, D Pagano, B Kupelnick. Meta-analysis: an update.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8692168/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias