Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10070677

Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting.

S L Normand
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Meta-analysis involves combining summary information from related but independent studies. The objectives of a meta-analysis include increasing power to detect an overall treatment effect, estimation of the degree of benefit associated with a particular study treatment, assessment of the amount of variability between studies, or identification of study characteristics associated with particularly effective treatments. This article presents a tutorial on meta-analysis intended for anyone with a mathematical statistics background. Search strategies and review methods of the literature are discussed. Emphasis is focused on analytic methods for estimation of the parameters of interest. Three modes of inference are discussed: maximum likelihood; restricted maximum likelihood, and Bayesian. Finally, software for performing inference using restricted maximum likelihood and fully Bayesian methods are demonstrated. Methods are illustrated using two examples: an evaluation of mortality from prophylactic use of lidocaine after a heart attack, and a comparison of length of hospital stay for stroke patients under two different management protocols.

Explore related subjects

Anti-Arrhythmia AgentsBayes TheoremBiometryCerebrovascular DisordersHumansLength of StayLidocaineLikelihood FunctionsMeta-Analysis as TopicMyocardial InfarctionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSoftwareJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S L Normand. 1999-02-15. Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting.. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19990215)18%3A3%3C321%3A%3Aaid-sim28%3E3.0.co%3B2-p

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2000

Therapeutic decision tree for patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias or aborted cardiac arrest: a critical review of the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillator trial and the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study.

Antiarrhythmic drugs, mainly amiodarone and sotalol, radiofrequency catheter ablation, and the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) are the 3 therapeutic options in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Idiopathic VT, incessant VT, frequently recurring, hemodynamically stable VT, and VT based on bundle branch reentry, are candidates for radiofrequency catheter ablation. Patients with high-risk ventricular tachyarrhythmias should receive ICDs as initial therapy. Two studies, the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillator trial (AVID) and the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS) have tried to approach the problem of these high-risk ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Although at 3 years, the ICD in AVID demonstrated a significant relative risk reduction over amiodarone of 31.5%, CIDS could not duplicate this finding. At 3 years, the relative risk reduction conferred by the ICD over amiodarone in CIDS was only 13.7%. A careful analysis of both studies suggests that CIDS was insufficiently powered to demonstrate statistically significant benefits similar to those shown by AVID, and furthermore, seemed to include an undetermined number of low-risk VT patients. The problem in the CIDS trial in this regard was the recruitment of patients in whom the inclusion criteria were met by the arrhythmias induced during the electrophysiology stimulation study, but which did not exist in real life. In addition CIDS included 14% of patients with (1) undocumented syncope and inducible monomorphic sustained VT; or (2) long runs of spontaneous nonsustained VT. Under these circumstances, the therapeutic implications of AVID remain unchallenged.

Anti-Arrhythmia Agents↗
PubMed2000

Matching cardiac rhythm management technology to patient needs: pacing/ablation/implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Data from 2 decades of clinical electrophysiologic studies have allowed great progress in the evaluation and treatment of patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias and the appropriate identification of those patients at high risk for subsequent sudden death. The goals of treatment of the patient with ventricular arrhythmias are to suppress symptoms and prevent a fatal event. The steps in providing such therapy include (1) defining the cardiac anatomy; (2) assessing arrhythmia risk through noninvasive or invasive testing; and (3) prescribing treatment based on these results. Patients may be separated into high- and low-risk groups to help identify appropriate treatment. Although low-risk groups may benefit from reassurance or medications such as beta-blockers or verapamil, high-risk groups have been more difficult to treat. Recent randomized trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for ventricular arrhythmias suggest that they may provide better protection for high-risk patients than do antiarrhythmic medications.

Anti-Arrhythmia Agents↗