Article View: sci.stat.consult
Article #23Re: Meta-analysis literature searches
From: Richard F Ulrich
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:00
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:00
47 lines
2880 bytes
2880 bytes
< tom.mead@dartmouth.edu >
Thomas L. Mead (Thomas.L.Mead@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: I've done some work with medical meta-analysis ("M-A") studies, where
: my job is to perform the literature search (usually rather vast &
: comprehensive & intentionally overbroad). Then I do some
: post-processing of the results, such that references are in a database
: program. I also get involved with filtering these results (determining
: which studies gotten from the literature search are likely to be
: subjected to M-A techniques...)
: Sometimes, when I read the METHODS sections of published meta-analysis
: research (in any field), I'm disappointed by what I consider to be
: cursory or inadequate descriptions of the literature search which
: precedes the statistical work. ("We searched MEDLINE..." just doesn't
: say nearly enough to me!)
Meta-analysis in the area of psychiatric treatment seems to suffer
from two problems *besides* what you mention, both of which make the
outcomes ABSURD, rather than just incomplete.
- The Treatments in the study do not match the stated intent.
- The populations under study differ vastly, but that is not even
mentioned.
- The outcomes are not firmly defined.
The only decent medical meta-analyses that I think of, off-hand,
are the ones that follow the prescription of using SIMPLE
treatment definitions, and SIMPLE outcome (namely, Death within
a stated interval).
Oh, and the performance of various meta-analyses is often carried
out without confirming that the results on hand are homogenous
in a *statistical* sense. That is, the SAME treatment will not
legitimately show a 1 S.D. effect in BOTH directions, in two
different studies that legitimately can be combined for an average.
(I don't know if this helps you directly, but there is a message
here, that at least a few of us have a lot of *scorn* for what
some meta-analyses have pretended to show us... just another
inept literature review, but decorated with numbers).
Rich Ulrich, biostatistician wpilib+@pitt.edu
Western Psychiatric Inst. and Clinic Univ. of Pittsburgh
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4l5n6q$5a5@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<4khmoh$9eq@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 112556,d955c8a25d9e60ae X-Google-Attributes: gid112556,public X-Google-Thread: 106918,d955c8a25d9e60ae X-Google-Attributes: gid106918,public X-Google-Thread: 111b91,d955c8a25d9e60ae X-Google-Attributes: gid111b91,public From: wpilib+@pitt.edu (Richard F Ulrich) Subject: Re: Meta-analysis literature searches Date: 1996/04/18 Message-ID: <4l5n6q$5a5@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> X-Deja-AN: 148194114 references: <4khmoh$9eq@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> followup-to: sci.stat.consult,bit.listserv.medlib-l,bit.listserv.asis-l organization: University of Pittsburgh newsgroups: sci.stat.consult,bit.listserv.medlib-l,bit.listserv.asis-l