Finckh Axel, Tramèr Martin R
Division of Rheumatology at University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2008 Mar;4(3):146-52. doi: 10.1038/ncprheum0732.
Properly conducted meta-analyses that are based on systematic reviews of the literature allow the conclusive synthesis of accumulating scientific evidence. Systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, offer a more objective appraisal of the available evidence compared with traditional narrative reviews. Combining data from independent studies using meta-analytic methods can improve statistical precision, but cannot prevent bias as such. The validity of meta-analyses depends on the methodological quality of the included studies, the eligibility criteria used for the meta-analysis, and the various reporting biases. In this Review we examine the analytical strengths of, and the main problems encountered by, both systematic reviews and meta-analyses, focusing on how to best assess the validity of each for the practicing clinician.
基于对文献的系统评价而恰当开展的荟萃分析,能够对不断积累的科学证据进行确定性的综合。与传统的叙述性综述相比,无论是否进行荟萃分析,系统评价都能对现有证据提供更客观的评估。使用荟萃分析方法合并独立研究的数据可以提高统计精度,但并不能防止此类偏差。荟萃分析的有效性取决于纳入研究的方法学质量、荟萃分析所采用的纳入标准以及各种报告偏倚。在本综述中,我们探讨了系统评价和荟萃分析的分析优势以及遇到的主要问题,重点关注如何最好地评估它们对临床医生的有效性。