Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research

Naylor, C. David

doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.617

Cited by 185 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…359 Furthermore, there should be a requirement on the part of those who undertake research (published or unpublished) to make all data available to those undertaking systematic reviews. 360 The use of specific trial identifiers within multiple publications would greatly decrease confusion over identification of the source trial.…”

Section: Reporting Of Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of atypical antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia

Bagnall

Jones

Ginnelly

et al. 2003

Health Technol Assess

151

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per monograph and for the rest of the world £3 per monograph.You can order HTA monographs from our Despatch Agents:-fax (with credit card or official purchase order) -post (with credit card or official purchase order or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you either to pay securely by credit card or to print out your order and then post or fax it. Contact Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to Direct Mail Works Ltd and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardThe following cards are accepted by phone, fax, post or via the website ordering pages: Delta, Eurocard, Mastercard, Solo, Switch and Visa. We advise against sending credit card details in a plain email. Paying by official purchase orderYou can post or fax these, but they must be from public bodies (i.e. NHS or universities) within the UK. We cannot at present accept purchase orders from commercial companies or from outside the UK. How do I get a copy of HTA on CD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd.htm). Or contact Direct Mail Works (see contact details above) by email, post, fax or phone. HTA on CD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA Programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTAA systematic review of atypical antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia NHS R&D HTA ProgrammeT he NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme was set up in 1993 to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.The research reported in this monograph was commissioned by the HTA Programme on behalf of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Technology assessment reports are completed in a limited time to inform the appraisal and guidance development processes managed by NICE. The review brings together evidence on key aspects of the use of the technology concerned. However, appraisals and guidance produced by NICE are informed by a wide range of sources.The research reported in this monograph was funded as project number 00/20/01.The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the HTA Programme, NICE or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for any recommendations made by the authors. Criteria for inclusion in the HTA monograph seriesReports are published in the HTA monograph series if (1) they have resulted from work commissioned for the HTA Programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the referees and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'syst...

show abstract

Section: Reporting Of Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of atypical antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia

Bagnall

Jones

Ginnelly

et al. 2003

Health Technol Assess

151

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even though the incidence of the mortality is on decline: fetal death rate 11.5 per 1000 in 1960s vs. 3.2 per 1000 in 1990s (1), interpretation of this relatively rare event is only possible with large population-based study. It is a subject to all of the fl aws of meta-analysis-an attempt to "amalgamate" very heterogeneous data collected from different centers (2,3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chances of Adverse Neonatal Outcome in High-Risk and Low-Risk Obstetrical Patients

Krilova

2008

Clinical medicine. Women's health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To analyze and compare occurrence of adverse immediate neonatal outcomes in high and low-risk obstetrical population. Methods:Retrospective cohort study of 2370 pregnant women.The odds of adverse outcomes (i.e. low Apgar score (1-4 points) and intermediate Apgar score (5-8 points) at 1 and 5 minutes of life, birth to a small-for-gestational-age neonate (below 90th percentile of birth weight), and requirement for advanced level II-III nursery care) as well as odds of primary cesarean delivery-were analyzed using logistic regression analysis.Results: All of the studied outcomes were seen more often among the high-risk patients.When the outcomes were analyzed within a given group some interesting observations were made.The highest odds of abnormal Apgar scores (when compared to the low risk population) were seen in patients with preeclampsia-6.06 (95% CI 3.28; 11.22) and twin pregnancies-odds ratio of 6.63 (95% CI 2.24; 19.67).Among Small-for-Gestational-Age newborns the most frequently identifi ed maternal condition was preeclampsia (21.57%), out of all fetal conditions twin gestation (26.67%) was number one identifi ed scenario.The highest proportion of patients requiring advanced level nursery care (level II and III) was observed in those with twin gestation, pregnancies complicated by hypertension with and without diabetes.The highest odds of having primary cesarean delivery in laboring patients (when compared to the low risk population) were seen in the patients with IUGR fetus-odds ratio of 26.78 [95% CI 7.65; 93.75], followed by macrosomia-odds ratio 5.74 [95% CI 2.14; 15.41], preeclampsia-odds ratio 5.52 [95% CI 3.14; 9.69].For additional fi ndings and more information on select conditions, please, refer to the full-text article. Conclusion:The studied outcomes are useful markers of fetal/neonatal status and can be used to compare perinatal outcomes between different medical conditions, different locales and to assess the dynamics of fetal/neonatal well-being over the course of time.Level of Evidence: II Detailed information on the studied adverse neonatal outcomes can be found in the full-text version of this document.

show abstract

“…Many authors feel that the unthinking pooling of data can generate misleading results by ignoring meaningful heterogeneity among studies, and introducing further biases through the process of selecting trials. 9,10 It is now widely felt that meta-analyses should attempt to evaluate heterogeneity rather than just drown all differences by pooling data. 11 Second, a meta-analysis can only be as good as the individual studies that contribute to it.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 Also, small Scientific Correspondence studies are less likely to be published as compared to large studies. 9 It has also been shown that negative studies take longer to appear in print.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%