Meta-Analyses: Appropriate Growth or Malignant Tumor? • Moderator – Alan M. Batterham, FACSM University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom. • Speakers – Will G. Hopkins, FACSM AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand. – Ian Shrier, FACSM McGill University, Montreal, PQ, Canada.
10
Embed
Meta-Analyses: Appropriate Growth or Malignant Tumor? Moderator –Alan M. Batterham, FACSM University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom. Speakers.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Meta-Analyses: Appropriate Growth or Malignant Tumor?
• Moderator– Alan M. Batterham, FACSM
University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
• Speakers– Will G. Hopkins, FACSM
AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.– Ian Shrier, FACSM
McGill University, Montreal, PQ, Canada.
Historical Notes
• Karl Pearson (1857-1936)– ‘‘Many of the groups … are
far too small to allow of any definite opinion being formed at all, having regard to the size of the probable error involved’’
(Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. BMJ, 3, 1243-6, 1904)
Historical Notes• Gene Glass the first to coin the term
‘Meta Analysis’ in 1976 (Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educat Res, 5, 3-8)
• 1979 – Archie Cochrane (1909-1988) highlighted that healthcare decision makers had no ready access to reliable evidence reviews.
• Cochrane Collaboration launched 1993
DEFINITIONS• Systematic ReviewSystematic Review
– A review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review.
• Meta-AnalysisMeta-Analysis – The use of statistical techniques (quantitative
inference) in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies. Sometimes misused as a synonym for systematic reviews, where the review includes a meta-analysis.
DEFINITIONS
• Non-Systematic ReviewNon-Systematic Review: : Non-systematic Non-systematic selection of studies, no statistical combination selection of studies, no statistical combination - may be biased.- may be biased.– ‘‘ ‘‘Take a simmering topic, extract the juice of an Take a simmering topic, extract the juice of an
argument, add the essence of one filing cabinet, argument, add the essence of one filing cabinet, sprinkle liberally with your own publications and sprinkle liberally with your own publications and sift out the work of noted detractors or sift out the work of noted detractors or adversaries’’ (Anon.)adversaries’’ (Anon.)
Fig 1 The Cochrane symbol, seen here in plans for the façade of the Cochranite Vatican that is to be built in Summertown
Fig 1 The Cochrane symbol, seen here in plans for the façade of the Cochranite Vatican that is to be built in Summertown
Clinicians for the Restoration of Autonomous Practice Writing Group (BMJ, 325, 1496-1498, 2002)Clinicians for the Restoration of Autonomous Practice Writing Group (BMJ, 325, 1496-1498, 2002)
EBM factions (BMJ, 325, 1496-1498)
• Cochranites - members of a worldwide order that has Archie Cochrane as its patron saint. They worship systematic reviews
• Meta anophiles - a heretical spin off of the Cochranites, who believe in combining the results of all the randomised controlled trials in the universe. Their current estimate of the ultimate summary statistic is 42 (95% CI 41.9999 to 42.0001)