Meta-analysis
- 18 March 1988
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA
- Vol. 259 (11) , 1685-1689
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1988.03720110047033
Abstract
Meta-analysis is being used with increasing frequency in clinical medicine as an attempt to improve on traditional methods of narrative review by systematically aggregating information and quantifying its impact. Combining data from several studies using meta-analysis can increase statistical power, provide insight into the nature of relationships among variables, and increase generalizability of results more rigorously than less quantitative review methods. Like all review methods, meta-analysis can be limited by sampling bias, inadequate data, and biased outcome interpretation. Still, the advantages noted above make meta-analysis a methodology that warrants testing and empirical evaluation. (JAMA1988;259:1685-1689)Keywords
This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cumulating quality of life results in controlled trials of coronary artery bypass graft surgeryControlled Clinical Trials, 1985
- Going beyond the narrative summarization of research findings: The meta‐analysis approachResearch in Nursing & Health, 1985
- A methodological and empirical critique of psychotherapy outcome meta-analysisBehaviour Research and Therapy, 1985
- Evaluation issues in medical research synthesisNew Directions for Program Evaluation, 1984
- Methodological issues in the meta‐analysis of quasi‐experimentsNew Directions for Program Evaluation, 1984
- Meta-analysis: A reflection on problemsAustralian Journal of Psychology, 1984
- Regression Methodology: Correlation, Meta-Analysis, Confidence Intervals, and ReliabilityJournal of Leisure Research, 1983
- What differentiates meta-analysis from other forms of review1Journal of Personality, 1981
- Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review systemCognitive Therapy and Research, 1977
- Accumulating Evidence: Procedures for Resolving Contradictions among Different Research StudiesHarvard Educational Review, 1971