systematic review vs meta analysis difference

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW VS META ANALYSIS DIFFERENCE UPDATE

When written by experts (usually by invitation) narrative reviews are also called “expert reviews”. Narrative reviews were the first form of literature overview allowing practitioners to have a quick synopsis on the current state of science in the topic of interest. Literature reviews can be classified as “narrative” and “systematic” ( Table 1). This review should also help practitioners to critically and appropriately read and interpret systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. A meta‐analysis is not just a statistical tool but qualifies as an actual observational study and hence it must be approached following established research methods involving well‐defined steps.

In the present article the authors aim to provide an introduction to readers not familiar with systematic reviews and meta‐analysis in order to help them understand the basics principles and methods behind this kind of literature.

As a consequence, guidelines have been developed and proposed to reduce the risk of drawing misleading conclusions from poorly conducted literature searches and meta‐analyses. Like any other scientific research, a systematic review with or without meta‐analysis can be performed in a good or bad way. Furthermore, systematic reviews and meta‐analyses have limitations that should be acknowledged and considered. The methodology used to perform systematic reviews and meta‐analyses is crucial. There are currently over 5000 Cochrane Reviews available ( ). The probably best known example is the Cochrane Collaboration, founded in 1993 as an independent, non‐profit organisation, now regrouping more than 28,000 contributors worldwide and producing systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of healthcare interventions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW VS META ANALYSIS DIFFERENCE UPDATE

International institutions have been created in recent years in an attempt to standardize and update scientific knowledge. For this reason, review articles are important tools available for practitioners to summarize and synthetize the available evidence on a particular topic, 10 in addition to being an integral part of the evidence‐based approach. This makes it even more difficult to use the scientific literature as reference knowledge for clinical decision‐making. 11 Furthermore, the reader also needs to be able to interpret both the new and the past body of knowledge in relation to the methodological quality of the studies. 10 However, this is time consuming and therefore is impractical if not impossible for practitioners to continuously read, evaluate, and incorporate the current knowledge from the primary literature sources on a given topic.

Due to the quest for timely and informed decisions in healthcare and medicine, good clinical practice and prompt integration of new research findings into routine practice, clinicians and practitioners should regularly read new literature and compare it with the existing evidence. The number of scientific articles published in biomedical areas has dramatically increased in the last several decades. This article will help practitioners to critically read and interpret systematic reviews and meta‐analyses to appropriately apply the available evidence to their clinical practice.Īuditing the quality of existing randomized controlled trials. In the present article the authors aim to provide a gentle introduction to readers not familiar with systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in order to understand the basic principles and methods behind this type of literature. Therefore, systematic reviews and meta‐analyses can provide the “best evidence” and an unbiased overview of the body of knowledge on a specific topic. However, given the dramatic increase in published studies, such an approach may become too time consuming and therefore impractical, if not impossible. Furthermore, informed decisions in healthcare and the prompt incorporation of new research findings in routine practice necessitate regular reading, evaluation, and integration of the current knowledge from the primary literature on a given topic. The use of an evidence‐based approach to practice requires “the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values”, where the best evidence can be gathered from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and meta‐analyses.

Systematic review vs meta analysis difference