Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The number of papers published on meta-analyses in medical research has increased sharply in the past 10 years (fig 1). The merits and perils of the somewhat mysterious procedure of meta-analysis, however, continue to be debated in the medical community.1 23 What, then, is meta-analysis? A useful definition was given by Huque: “A statistical analysis that combines or integrates the results of several independent clinical trials considered by the analyst to be ‘combinable.’” 4 The terminology, however, is still debated, and expressions used concurrently include “overview,” “pooling,” and “quantitative synthesis.” We believe that the term meta-analysis should be used to describe the statistical integration of separate studies, whereas “systematic review” is most appropriate for denoting any review of a body of data that uses clearly defined methods and criteria (box). Systematic reviews can include meta-analyses, appraisals of single trials, and other sources of evidence.6 In this article we examine the potentials and promise of meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. In later articles of this series we will consider the practical steps involved in meta-analysis,7 examine various extensions beyond the calculation of a combined estimate,8 address potential biases and discuss strategies to detect and minimise the influence of these in meta-analysis of randomised trials9 and of observational studies.10 We will conclude with a discussion of unresolved issues and future developments.11 Details of relevant software will appear on the BMJ's website at the end of the series. Fig 1 Number of publications about meta-analysis, 1987–96 (results from Medline search using text word and medical subject heading “meta-analysis”) #### What's in a name? The case for “meta-analysis” The term meta-analysis for statistically combining and analysing data from separate studies is appropriate because:
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Matthias Egger
George Davey Smith
BMJ
University of Bristol
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Egger et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d91af7d8690e49a7835949 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7119.1371