Metaanalyses Are Observational Studies: How Lack of Randomization Impacts Analysis

Although metaanalyses are often syntheses of many experiments, they are themselves observational studies. As such, when performing or reading metaanalyses, we must consider the sources of bias that we usually expect in an observational study. The main two sources of bias for metaanalysis are publica...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe American journal of gastroenterology Vol. 100; no. 6; pp. 1233 - 1236
Main Author Kaizar, Eloise E
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Wolters Kluwer Health Medical Research, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 01.06.2005
Subjects
Gastroenterology
Humans
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Observation - methods
Publication Bias
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Although metaanalyses are often syntheses of many experiments, they are themselves observational studies. As such, when performing or reading metaanalyses, we must consider the sources of bias that we usually expect in an observational study. The main two sources of bias for metaanalysis are publication bias and systematic heterogeneity. I consider the nature of both of these sources, methods to detect this bias, and ways to correct for the bias.
Bibliography:SourceType-Other Sources-1
content type line 63
ObjectType-Editorial-2
ObjectType-Commentary-1
ISSN:0002-9270
1572-0241
DOI:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.50107.x