| |
|
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 25
| Issue : 1 | Page : 1-2 |
|
| The Systematic Review Meta-Analysis Conundrum |
|
|
Shishir Singh
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Terna Dental College, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Click here for correspondence address and email
| Date of Submission | 30-Mar-2022 |
| Date of Acceptance | 30-Mar-2022 |
| Date of Web Publication | 02-May-2022 |
|
|
 |
|
How to cite this article:
Singh S. The Systematic Review Meta-Analysis Conundrum. J Conserv Dent 2022;25:1-2 |
It is interesting to see a large number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses being done and uploaded for publication. Unfortunately, this sudden surge in publications has made the reviewer's and editor's jobs more challenging when it comes to processing systematic reviews.
I feel that such a deluge of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has resulted in a compromise in quality as far as following the protocols is concerned with any combination or strategy being used and in turn undermining the research. This write-up brings out the do's and don'ts and a few suggestions that can help understand Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses simply.
Most importantly, a Systematic review is different than a Meta-analysis and should nowhere be considered to be the same. Littell et al.[1] in their book have brought out this difference explicitly and explained in detail the steps for the same.
When it comes to research analysis, it is the evidence that plays a major role in deciding the quality.[2] Meta-Analysis is the top-ranked followed, by Systematic review, Randomized control trial, Cohort studies, Case–control studies, Case reports, and Animal research and laboratory studies in a descending order [Table 1].
Systematic reviews have a search question, are more detailed and involve a search strategy.[3] They require a lot of planning, are comprehensive, and reduce all risks of bias making the outcome more specific and sensitive to a particular topic. A narrative review, on the other hand, though descriptive and informative, can have an amount of selection bias. Most often, the systematic review has a meta-analysis component where the data are further processed, quantified, and summarized.
Muka et al.[4] have simplified the methodology to help synthesize the research data and publish the same successfully. [Table 2] outlines the steps one needs to follow carefully each step, which is further subdivided to simplify the researcher's work.
The National Institute for Health Research has an international database named PROSPERO where all the prospective systematic reviews need to be registered. Once the protocol is registered on PROSPERO, the researcher gets a unique id number with all the details for future reference. It is interesting to note that details of Cochrane protocols get automatically loaded on PROSPERO.
There are various guidelines available for reporting particular type of studies. Use of these checklists and tools is important for a successful outcome.[5]
- QUOROM: The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis[6]
- CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials[7]
- PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses[8]
- PRISMA P: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols[9]
- MOOSE: The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology[10]
- ROBINS-I: Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions[11]
- ROB 2: COCHRANE: Risk of Bias tool for randomized control trials.[12]
We at the Journal of Conservative Dentistry urge the researchers to use the various tools available and improve the quality of their research. Adapting the various tools and adhering strictly to the criteria will only help bring out better and high-quality research papers.
 References | |  |
| 1. | Littell J, Corcoran J, Pillai V. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Pocket Guides to Social Work Research Methods. Oxford University Press; 2008.  |
| 2. | Haidich AB. Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia 2010;14 Suppl 1:29-37. |
| 3. | Uman LS. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2011;20:57-9. |
| 4. | Muka T, Glisic M, Milic J, Verhoog S, Bohlius J, Bramer W, et al. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol 2020;35:49-60. |
| 5. | |
| 6. | Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896-900. |
| 7. | Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 2012;10:28-55. |
| 8. | Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-9, W64. |
| 9. | Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1. |
| 10. | Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008-12. |
| 11. | Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. |
| 12. | Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898. |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Shishir Singh
05/306, St Annes Apartments, Off Palimala Road, Bandra, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_173_22
[Table 1], [Table 2] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 465 | | | Printed | 8 | | | Emailed | 0 | | | PDF Downloaded | 25 | | | Comments | [Add] | | |
|
|
