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 accessOne-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 InjuryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- 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
- Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies.J Bone Joint Surg Am. Jan 2001; 83: 15-24
- A systematic review of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery between 2000 and 2016.Bone Joint J. 2018; 100-B: 1270-1274
- 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
- Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?.Lancet. 1998; 352: 609-613
- 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
- 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
- Resolving conflicting clinical trials: guidelines for meta-analysis.J Clin Epidemiol. 1988; 41: 503-509
- The medical review article: state of the science.Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106: 485-488
- Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.N Engl J Med. 1987; 316: 450-455
- Meta-analysis: an update.Mt Sinai J Med. 1996; 63: 216-224
- Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement.Lancet. 1999; 354: 1896-1900
- The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.PLoS Med. 2009; 6e1000100
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 15: 10
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Grey matters; on the importance of publication bias in systematic reviews.Br J Sports Med. 2017; 51: 488-489
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.(editors)2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterUK2019
- GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926
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].
- How useful are meta-analyses in orthopaedic trauma?.J Trauma. Nov 2011; 71: 1395-1399https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e318208f983
- 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
- The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.Milbank Q. 2016; 94: 485-514
- 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
- The need to consider the wider agenda in systematic reviews and meta analyses: breadth, timing, and depth of the evidence.BMJ. 2010; 341: c4875
- 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
- Evaluation of networks of randomized trials.Stat Methods Med Res. 2008; 17: 279-301
- Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments metaanalyses.CMAJ. 2009; 181: 488-493
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 11, 2022
Accepted:
June 10,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
