Guides for Reading and Interpreting Systematic Reviews

Reconciling disparate data to determine the right answer: A grounded theory of meta analysts' reasoning in meta‐analysis

“…However, our finding that different meta‐analysts—with unique forms of training and experience—interpreted idealized datasets differently highlights that the analytical process is inherently interpretive, subjective, and related to the surrounding social context. This research corroborates our previous work and the work of others that suggests analytical reasoning entails subjective interpretations, ranging from highly calculative and methodical operations to more immediate intuitive judgments. Despite the apparently objective nature of the data being analyzed, the eventual determination of a treatment effect requires an interpretation whereby different meta‐analysts will weigh various considerations uniquely.…”

Antidepressants for non-specific low back pain

“…However, we were able to calculate standardised mean di erences from the post treatment means and standard deviations for both of these and thereby include these in our meta-analysis. Our review reflects the findings of Jadad and colleagues (Jadad 1997), which showed that a meta-analysis with a more comprehensive set of trials is less likely to generate positive results (i.e. a statistically significant favourable e ect).…”

Intra-articular hyaluronic acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a Canadian evidence-based perspective

“…Despite these limitations, our findings are in line with other important works in this area, including a more comprehensive systematic MA review by Xing and colleagues 60 using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) method 61,62 and Jadad and colleagues' decision algorithm 63 to evaluate the methodological quality and identify sources of inconsistencies between MAs, respectively. This work identified a Cochrane systematic review as the highest quality MA on this subject, 34 confirming pain, function and stiffness benefits for IAHA compared with placebo, conclusions which were also supported by another recent expert perspective on this seminal work.…”