The exponential increase in publications focusing on important clinical issues represents a major challenge for patients, physicians, and decision-makers, despite the braggadocio of many experts. Meta-analysis, when conducted within the context of a systematic review, offers an efficient and potent tool to summarize the clinical evidence accrued on a specific clinical question. Despite their many strengths, which include statistical precision, external validity, and the opportunity to analyze subgroups and moderators, meta-analyses also have many limitations. In addition, they are criticized because potentially an exercise in "mega-silliness", mixing "apples and oranges", unable to improve the quality of primary studies (in keeping with the say "garbage in-garbage out"), and focusing on an "average patient" who is only hypothetical. Yet, it is evident that meta-analyses will continue to play a key role in informing decision making whenever the best approach is not self-evident. Thus, it is mandatory to know their main features in order to use them critically and constructively, without being dominated nor scared.

What meta-analyses teach us: pros and cons / Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe; D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio; Frati, Giacomo; Abbate, Antonio. - In: GIORNALE ITALIANO DI CARDIOLOGIA. - ISSN 1827-6806. - 16:9(2015), pp. 469-474. [10.1714/1988.21516]

What meta-analyses teach us: pros and cons

Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe;Frati, Giacomo;Abbate, Antonio
2015

Abstract

The exponential increase in publications focusing on important clinical issues represents a major challenge for patients, physicians, and decision-makers, despite the braggadocio of many experts. Meta-analysis, when conducted within the context of a systematic review, offers an efficient and potent tool to summarize the clinical evidence accrued on a specific clinical question. Despite their many strengths, which include statistical precision, external validity, and the opportunity to analyze subgroups and moderators, meta-analyses also have many limitations. In addition, they are criticized because potentially an exercise in "mega-silliness", mixing "apples and oranges", unable to improve the quality of primary studies (in keeping with the say "garbage in-garbage out"), and focusing on an "average patient" who is only hypothetical. Yet, it is evident that meta-analyses will continue to play a key role in informing decision making whenever the best approach is not self-evident. Thus, it is mandatory to know their main features in order to use them critically and constructively, without being dominated nor scared.
2015
Decision Making; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Research Design; Review Literature as Topic
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
What meta-analyses teach us: pros and cons / Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe; D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio; Frati, Giacomo; Abbate, Antonio. - In: GIORNALE ITALIANO DI CARDIOLOGIA. - ISSN 1827-6806. - 16:9(2015), pp. 469-474. [10.1714/1988.21516]
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1084580
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact