![]() Thirdly, single studies rarely provide definitive answers to clinical questions. It gives us the option to read a summary prepared by others, relying on those who have already spent time, money, and energy to summarize information from multiple studies on the topic. Meta-analysis can provide access to information from many studies with less effort and hassle. Secondly, to access all or most of the studies on a particular topic to arrive at a well informed clinical decision is often difficult, time consuming and cost-ineffective. Firstly, decision-makers are inundated with unmanageable amounts of information. The rationale for such reviews is grounded firmly in several premises. The benefits or hazards that might not be detected in small studies can be found in a meta-analysis that uses data from thousands of patients′. The New York Times (7 January 1994) in a report on the effect of aspirin therapy for the prevention of recurrence of heart attacks or strokes, provided a definition of meta-analysis: ′A meta-analysis aims at gleaning more information from existing data by pooling the results of many smaller studies and applying one or more statistical techniques. It provides a logical framework to a research review where similar measures from comparable studies are listed systematically and the available effect measures are combined where possible. ![]() Meta-analysis has been defined as ′the statistical analysis of a large collection of results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings′. Meta-analytic approaches have been used to resolve long standing controversies in the field of medicine, including dermatology. The Cochrane Collaboration is significantly contributing to the development of this area of research and making a noticeable dent on the practice of evidence based medicine across the globe. Steps in designing and conducting meta-analysis involve describing the purpose of meta-analysis, designing a research question, searching for studies, specifying study selection (inclusion and exclusion) and appraisal criteria, deciding data extraction procedures (including statistical reanalysis), assessing combinability of studies, selecting an analytical strategy (use of models and sensitivity analysis), anticipating systematic errors (biases) and limitations, and presenting and disseminating results of the meta-analysis. ![]() However, if they report discordant results and generate controversies, then what should we look for? The answer to this imbroglio is meta-analysis. Traditionally, randomized controlled trials are considered gold standard study designs. The quality of research varies, and so much information is being produced that it is impossible for anyone to know and evaluate it all. ![]() Every day clinicians debate, implicitly or explicitly, whether new research findings are convincing enough to change the way they practice. AbstractWhen it comes to health care, everybody - medical professionals, policymakers and patients - wants to know what works and what does not. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |