Hanyang Med Rev.  2015 Feb;35(1):33-39. 10.7599/hmr.2015.35.1.33.

Meta-Analysis and Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials

• Lee SW

• KMID: 2149102
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.7599/hmr.2015.35.1.33

Abstract

Meta-analysis is the statistical combination of results from two or more separate studies. Potential advantages of meta-analyses include an increase in power, an improvement in precision, the ability to answer questions not posed by individual studies, and the opportunity to settle controversies arising from conflicting claims. However, they also have the potential to mislead seriously, particularly if specific study designs, within-study biases, variation across studies, and reporting biases are not carefully considered. It is important to be familiar with the type of data (e.g. dichotomous, continuous) that result from measurement of an outcome in an individual study, and to choose suitable effect measures for comparing intervention groups. Most meta-analysis methods are variations on a weighted average of the effect estimates from the different studies. Variation across studies (heterogeneity) must be considered. Random-effects meta-analyses allow for heterogeneity by assuming that underlying effects follow a normal distribution. Various judgments are required in the process of preparing a meta-analysis. Especially, quality assessment of randomized controlled trial is essential. There are several methods to assess the methodological quality of clinical trials, including scales, individual markers, and checklists. Analyzing the quality of studies makes the results of meta-analysis more reliable. Sensitivity analyses should be used to examine whether overall findings are robust to potentially influential decisions.

Keyword

Meta-Analysis; Quality Assurance; Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH Terms

Bias (Epidemiology)
Checklist
Delivery of Health Care
Judgment
Population Characteristics
Weights and Measures

Reference

1. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976; 3–8.

2. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106:485–488.

3. Cochrane AL, Fellowship RC. Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust London. 1972.

4. Cochrane AL. 1931-1971: a critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. Medicines for the year 2000. London: Office of Health Economics;1979. p. 1–11.

5. Chalmers I, Sackett D, Silagy C, Maynard A, Chalmers TC. Non-random reflections on health services research. London: BMJ Publishing Group;1997.

6. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996; 312:71–72.

7. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. London: Churchill-Livingston;2000.

8. Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-Analysis. potentials and promise. BMJ. 1997; 315:1371–1374.

9. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7:177–186.

10. Uetani K, Nakayama T, Ikai H, Yonemoto N, Moher D. Quality of reports on randomized controlled trials conducted in Japan: evaluation of adherence to the CONSORT statement. Intern Med. 2009; 48:307–313.

11. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996; 276:637–639.

12. Petitti DB. Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis: methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine. New York: Oxford University Press;1999.

13. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. 1st ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd;2000.

14. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman D. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group;2001.

15. Glasziou P, Irwig L, Bain C, Bain C, Colditz G, Irwig L. Systematic reviews in health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;2001.

16. Stangl D, Berry DA. Meta-analysis in medicine and health policy. Basel: Marcel Dekker;2000.

17. L'Abbe KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med. 1987; 107:224–233.

18. Meade MO, Richardson WS. Selecting and appraising studies for a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127:531–537.

19. Lee JY. Medical Statistics at a Glance. Seoul: Epublic;2007.

20. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976; 5:3–8.

21. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995; 273:408–412.

22. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996; 17:1–12.

23. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999; 282:1054–1060.

24. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ. 1997; 315:1533–1537.

25. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996; 17:1–12.

26. Van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28:1290–1299.

27. Higgins JP, Green S, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Ver. 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration;2011. cited 2011 Jan 7. Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.

28. Hedges LV. Statistical Methodology in Meta-Analysis. Princeton: Educational Testing Service;1982.

29. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999; 354:1896–1900.

30. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000; 283:2008–2012.

31. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 126:376–380.