Meta-analysis is superior to narrative literature review because it aggregates results across individual studies statistically and corrects for statistical artefacts like sampling and measurement error, thereby providing much greater precision with respect to the findings compared with narrative reviews.
But the lack of homogeneity in the underlying studies in meta-analysis remains a concern.
Are the findings of meta-analysis with heterogeneity useful for suggestions to regulators or policy makers?
thank you
I love heterogeneity. When it exists, you can attempt to identify moderator variables that can explain the between-study variance in effect size. You can then examine those moderator variables in follow-up research studies to determine if they act causally. I think this approach would be of interest to regulators and policy makers as it is to scientists and clinicians.
Moderate heterogeneity should not be considered as a constraint because ultimately the source of heterogeneity is individual patient each of which is genetically different from other. As long as methodological assessment and overall quality assessment of the trial report permit, there should be a balance of homogeneity and heterogeneity indices in clinical data. However, research should continue to further refine the methods of statistical outcome acceptance and statistical-clinical significance nexus.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Statistical Techniques
- Meta-Analysis