因果研究的荟萃分析专用软件的系统比较。
A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies.
作者信息
Bax Leon, Yu Ly-Mee, Ikeda Noriaki, Moons Karel G M
出版信息
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Sep 10;7:40. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-40.
BACKGROUND
Our objective was to systematically assess the differences in features, results, and usability of currently available meta-analysis programs.
METHODS
Systematic review of software. We did an extensive search on the internet (Google, Yahoo, Altavista, and MSN) for specialized meta-analysis software. We included six programs in our review: Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA), MetAnalysis, MetaWin, MIX, RevMan, and WEasyMA. Two investigators compared the features of the software and their results. Thirty independent researchers evaluated the programs on their usability while analyzing one data set.
RESULTS
The programs differed substantially in features, ease-of-use, and price. Although most results from the programs were identical, we did find some minor numerical inconsistencies. CMA and MIX scored highest on usability and these programs also have the most complete set of analytical features.
CONCLUSION
In consideration of differences in numerical results, we believe the user community would benefit from openly available and systematically updated information about the procedures and results of each program's validation. The most suitable program for a meta-analysis will depend on the user's needs and preferences and this report provides an overview that should be helpful in making a substantiated choice.
背景
我们的目标是系统评估当前可用的荟萃分析程序在功能、结果和可用性方面的差异。
方法
软件系统评价。我们在互联网（谷歌、雅虎、阿尔塔维斯塔和MSN）上广泛搜索专门的荟萃分析软件。我们在评价中纳入了六个程序：综合荟萃分析（CMA）、MetaAnalysis、MetaWin、MIX、RevMan和WEasyMA。两名研究者比较了软件的功能及其结果。30名独立研究人员在分析一个数据集时对这些程序的可用性进行了评估。
结果
这些程序在功能、易用性和价格方面存在很大差异。虽然这些程序的大多数结果是相同的，但我们确实发现了一些细微的数值不一致之处。CMA和MIX在可用性方面得分最高，并且这些程序还拥有最完整的分析功能集。
结论
考虑到数值结果的差异，我们认为用户群体将从有关每个程序验证的程序和结果的公开可用且系统更新的信息中受益。最适合荟萃分析的程序将取决于用户的需求和偏好，本报告提供了一个概述，应有助于做出有充分依据的选择。
Zotero 插件