Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis

1
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES
Pain Points
An Academic presentation by Dr. Nancy Agnes,
Head, Technical Operations, Pubrica Group
www.pubrica.com Email sales_at_pubrica.com
2
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are
single investigations that aggregate the findings
of several other research on a specific topic,
such as the efficacy or safety of a medicine or
medical device. Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis Services, when completed correctly,
are regarded as the most significant evidence on
a specific issue and are highly valuable for
making health care decisions based on data from
several research rather than evidence from the
most current or most extensive individual
studies. However, if systematic reviews and
meta-analyses are not done correctly or are
biased, they may be of limited utility or even
deceptive.
3
PRODUCTION OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ON A LARGE SCALE
Even though methods for conducting systematic
reviews and meta-analyses have been around for
many decades, they were not widely used in
biomedical and health care research until the
late 1980s and 1990s, owing to a lack of popular
software to create them in large quantities at
the time. In 2003, researchers from the Cochrane
Collaboration, a well- known international
non-profit organization specializing in
systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis Experts,
predicted that approximately 10,000 systematic
reviews would be required to refuge all clinical
trials in health care research. Contd...
4
(JPA Ioannidis 2016) However, Ioannidis
discovered that from January 1, 1986, to
December 4, 2015, almost 59,000 meta-analyses and
267,000 systematic reviews were indexed in
MEDLINE. The increase of these publications
support has surpassed the rate of development of
studies overall Between 1991 and 2014, yearly
publications climbed by more than 2,700 for
systematic reviews and 2,600 for meta-analyses,
compared to a 153 annual rise for all
MEDLINE-indexed items.
5
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND
META-ANALYSIS DUPLICATION
The increase in writing the systematic reviews
and Meta-Analysis services , Manuscript is
primarily due to duplication, as most topics
have many systematic reviews and
meta-analysis. For example, a BMJ review of 73
randomly chosen meta-analyses published in 2010
discovered that for 2/3rd of these studies, there
was at least one, and often as many as 13, new
meta-analyses published on the same issue by
early 2013.
Contd...
6
It may be claimed that having many independent
writers look at the same data to see if they
reach the same results and conclusions or study
other outcomes than those included in initial
evaluations has some merit. However, according
to the aforementioned BMJ study, over a quarter
of subsequent meta-analyses were undertaken by
some original meta-analyses' authors, and 65 of
subsequent meta-analyses did not include other
outcomes than those included in the original
meta-analyses. Furthermore, overlapping Clinical
Meta-Analysis experts might be perplexing since
they may not contain the same primary studies
that satisfied the criteria for inclusion in the
original meta-analysis. While this method may
explain why overlapping reviews provide diverse
outcomes, readers may find it challenging to
reconcile disparate conclusions.
7
FRAGMENTED EVIDENCE
Another critical issue with systematic reviews
and meta-analyses is that they frequently
attempt to piece together information from much
primary research that are intrinsically different
without addressing variations in these studies.
8
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses are
carried out by investigators or contracting
companies with ties to the pharmaceutical or
medical device businesses. This is a concerning
trend since research has shown that
industry-sponsored reviews are less open about
their procedures and frequently reach
conclusions more favorable to the sector than
evaluations performed by independent
investigators.
9
CONCLUSION
Because of the aforementioned problems, which
include
unneeded, misleading, and contradictory

• systematic reviews and meta-analyses, this study
  finds that this defective research does not
  promote evidence-based medicine and health care.
• He thinks that just 3 of all meta-analyses are
  excellent and valuable.
• Contd...

10
As a result, it calls for a significant overhaul
in the production of biomedical research and its
credible synthesis, including planning and
conducting prospective systematic reviews and
meta-analyses without conflicts of interest
through collaboration between primary study
researchers and those of future systematic
reviews and meta-analyses. These reforms will
require the support of many stakeholders,
including funders, scientists, medical
publications, and consumers. Meanwhile, readers
of systematic reviews and meta-analyses should
take their conclusions with a grain of
salt. Readers should search for any conflicts of
interest and see whether other studies found
different results or findings.
11
ABOUT PUBRICA
Pubrica's team of researchers and authors create
scientific and medical research articles that can
serve as an invaluable tool for practitioners
and authors. Pubrica medical writers assist you
in writing and editing the introduction by
presenting the reader with the limitations or
gaps in the specified study subject. Our experts
understand the structure that follows the broad
topic, the problem, and the background before
moving on to a narrow topic to state the
hypothesis.
12
REFERENCES

1. Ioannidis J. Next-generation systematic reviews
   Prospective meta-analysis, individual-level data,
   networks and umbrella reviews. Br J Sport Med.
   2017 February 21. doi10.1136/bjsports-2017-0976
   21.
2. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al.
   Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of
   systematic reviews of biomedical research A
   cross-sectional study. PLOS Med.
   201613(5)e1002028. doi 10.1371/journal.pmed.100
   2028.

13
Contact Us
UNITED KINGDOM 44 1618186353 INDIA 91-988435000
6 EMAIL sales_at_pubrica.com