Advertisement

Meta-analysis. What have we learned?

      Abstract

      Meta-analyses constitute fundamental tools of the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) aiming at synthesizing outcome data from individual trials in order to produce pooled effect estimates for various outcomes of interest. Combining summary data from several studies increases the sample size, improves the statistical power of the findings as well as the precision of the obtained effect estimates. For all these reasons, meta-analyses are thought of providing the best evidence to support clinical practice guidelines. However, the strength of the provided evidence is closely dependent on the quality of included studies as well as the rigour of the meta-analytic process. In addition, over the course of the evolution of the current meta-analytic methodology, some concerns have been expressed on the ultimate usefulness of such a complex and time consuming procedure on establishing timely, valid evidence on various specified topics in the field of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery. This article provides an overview of the appropriate methodology, benefits and potential drawbacks of the meta-analytic procedure.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Injury
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Lu VM
        • Graffeo CS
        • Mikula AL
        • Perry A
        • Carlstrom LP
        • Elder BD
        • Freedman BA
        • Krauss WE.
        Making the Most of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Spine Surgery: A Primer for the Practicing Spine Surgeon.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Jul 1; 45: E808-E812https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003429
        • Bhandari M
        • Morrow F
        • Kulkarni AV
        • Tornetta 3rd, P
        Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. Jan 2001; 83: 15-24
        • Manta A
        • Opingari E
        • Simunovic N
        • Duong A
        • Sprague S
        • Peterson D
        • Bhandari M.
        A systematic review of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery between 2000 and 2016.
        Bone Joint J. 2018; 100-B: 1270-1274
        • Dijkman BG
        • Abouali JA
        • Kooistra BW
        • Conter HJ
        • Poolman RW
        • Kulkarni AV
        • Tornetta 3rd, P
        • Bhandari M.
        Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: has quality kept up with quantity?.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. Jan 2010; 92: 48-57https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.00251
        • Moher D
        • Pham B
        • Jones A
        • Cook DJ
        • Jadad AR
        • Moher M
        • Tugwell P
        • Klassen TP.
        Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?.
        Lancet. 1998; 352: 609-613
        • Guyatt GH
        • Haynes RB
        • Jaeschke RZ
        • Cook DJ
        • Green L
        • Naylor CD
        • Wilson MC
        • Richardson WS.
        Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the Users’ Guides to patient care. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.
        JAMA. 2000; 284: 1290-1296
        • Petrisor B.A.
        • Keating J
        • Schemitsch E.
        Grading the evidence: Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation.
        Injury. Apr 2006; 37: 321-327https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2006.02.001
        • Gerbarg ZB
        • Horwitz RI.
        Resolving conflicting clinical trials: guidelines for meta-analysis.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1988; 41: 503-509
        • Mulrow CD.
        The medical review article: state of the science.
        Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106: 485-488
        • Sacks HS
        • Berrier J
        • Reitman D
        • Ancona-Berk VA
        • Chalmers TC.
        Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
        N Engl J Med. 1987; 316: 450-455
        • Sacks HS
        • Reitman D
        • Pagano D
        • Kupelnick B.
        Meta-analysis: an update.
        Mt Sinai J Med. 1996; 63: 216-224
        • Moher D
        • Cook DJ
        • Eastwood S
        • Olkin I
        • Rennie D
        • Stroup DF
        • for the QUOROM group
        Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement.
        Lancet. 1999; 354: 1896-1900
        • Liberati A
        • Altman DG
        • Tetzlaff J
        • et al.
        The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.
        PLoS Med. 2009; 6e1000100
        • Moher D
        • Liberati A
        • Tetzlaff J
        • Altman DG
        • for the PRISMA Group
        Research methods and reporting. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        BMJ. 2009; 339: b2535https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
        • Rethlefsen ML
        • Kirtley S
        • Waffenschmidt S
        • Ayala AP
        • Moher D
        • Page MJ
        • Koffel JB
        • Group PRISMA-S
        PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews.
        Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 26; 10: 39https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
        • Stroup DF
        • Berlin JA
        • Morton SC
        • 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: 2008-2012https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008
        • Shea BJ
        • Grimshaw JM
        • Wells GA
        • Boers M
        • Andersson N
        • Hamel C
        • et al.
        Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 15: 10
        • Shea BJ
        • Reeves BC
        • Wells G
        • Thuku M
        • Hamel C
        • Moran J
        • Moher D
        • Tugwell P
        • Welch V
        • Kristjansson E
        • Henry DA.
        AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.
        BMJ. 2017; 358 (Sep 21): j4008https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
        • Zhi X
        • Zhang Z
        • Cui J
        • Zhai X
        • Chen X
        • Su J.
        Quality of meta-analyses in major leading orthopedics journals: A systematic review.
        Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. Dec 2017; 103: 1141-1146https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2017.08.009
        • Bero Lisa
        Getting the systematic review basics right helps clinical practice: 4 common pitfalls for systematic review authors to avoid.
        Br J Sports Med. Jan 2019; 53: 6-8https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098239
        • Winters M
        • Weir A.
        Grey matters; on the importance of publication bias in systematic reviews.
        Br J Sports Med. 2017; 51: 488-489
        • Sterne JA
        • Savović J
        • Page MJ
        • et al.
        RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
        BMJ. 2019 Aug 28; 366: l4898https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
        • Sterne JAC
        • Hernán MA
        • Reeves BC
        • et al.
        ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.
        BMJ. 2016 Oct 12; 355: i4919https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
        • Zlowodzki M
        • Poolman RW
        • Kerkhoffs GM
        • Paul Tornetta III, P
        • Bhandari M
        • On behalf of the International Evidence-Based Orthopedic Surgery Working Group
        How to interpret a meta-analysis and judge its value as a guide for clinical practice.
        Acta Orthopaedica. 2007; 78: 598-609https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670710014284
        • Higgins JPT
        • Thomas J
        • Chandler J
        • Cumpston M
        • Li T
        • Page MJ
        • Welch VA
        Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
        (editors)2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterUK2019
        • Guyatt GH
        • Oxman AD
        • Vist GE
        • Kunz R
        • Falck-Ytter Y
        • Alonso-Coello P
        • Schünemann HJ
        GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
        BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926
      1. Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM). Critical Appraisal. Available from: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/ebm-tools/critical-appraisal-tools [Last accessed on 2022 May 10].

        • Court-Brown CM
        • McQueen MM.
        How useful are meta-analyses in orthopaedic trauma?.
        J Trauma. Nov 2011; 71: 1395-1399https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e318208f983
        • Harris JD
        • Cote MP
        • Dhawan A
        • Hohmann E
        • Brand JC.
        Nearly one-third of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses yield inconclusive conclusions: A Systematic Review.
        Arthroscopy. Sep 2021; 37: 2991-2998https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2021.03.073
        • Ioannidis JP.
        The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.
        Milbank Q. 2016; 94: 485-514
        • Ioannidis JP.
        Next-generation systematic reviews: prospective meta-analysis, individual-level data, networks and umbrella reviews.
        Br J Sports Med. Oct 2017; 51: 1456-1458https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-097621
        • Ioannidis JP
        • Karassa FB.
        The need to consider the wider agenda in systematic reviews and meta analyses: breadth, timing, and depth of the evidence.
        BMJ. 2010; 341: c4875
        • Blettner M
        • Sauerbrei W
        • B Schlehofer B
        • Scheuchenpflug T
        • Friedenreich C
        Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology.
        Int J Epidemiol. Feb 1999; 28: 1-9https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/28.1.1
        • Salanti G
        • Higgins JP
        • Ades AE
        • et al.
        Evaluation of networks of randomized trials.
        Stat Methods Med Res. 2008; 17: 279-301
        • Ioannidis JP.
        Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments metaanalyses.
        CMAJ. 2009; 181: 488-493