🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.stat.consult
Article #23

Re: Meta-analysis literature searches

#23
From: Richard F Ulrich
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 00:00
47 lines
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-mail
References: <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