Scribd
Upload
107 views

What Is The Difference Between A Systematic Review and A Meta

A systematic review aims to gather, appraise and synthesize evidence to answer a well-defined question in a detailed, systematic and transparent manner. It may include a meta-analysis, which statistically combines quantitative data from multiple studies. In contrast, a meta-analysis on its own does not involve the full systematic review process. A systematic review will not always include a meta-analysis if the question is better answered through qualitative data or if the studies are too different to statistically combine. It is important to specify the review and analysis methods in advance through a published protocol to reduce bias.

Uploaded by

sutarmisaja15
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
107 views

What Is The Difference Between A Systematic Review and A Meta

A systematic review aims to gather, appraise and synthesize evidence to answer a well-defined question in a detailed, systematic and transparent manner. It may include a meta-analysis, which statistically combines quantitative data from multiple studies. In contrast, a meta-analysis on its own does not involve the full systematic review process. A systematic review will not always include a meta-analysis if the question is better answered through qualitative data or if the studies are too different to statistically combine. It is important to specify the review and analysis methods in advance through a published protocol to reduce bias.

Uploaded by

sutarmisaja15
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

What is the difference between a systematic review and a

meta-analysis?
February 12, 2018 1 Comment

3 min read Expectation versus Reality


It is a common misconception that meta-analysis and systematic reviews are the same and the terms
are often used interchangeably. While there is substantial overlap between the two they are not the
same thing. Let’s start by defining the two concepts:

A systematic review is a detailed, systematic and transparent means of gathering, appraising and
synthesising evidence to answer a well-defined question.

A meta-analysis is a statistical procedure for combining numerical data from multiple separate
studies. A meta-analysis should only ever be conducted in the context of a systematic review.

The hallmark of systematic reviews is that they seek to reduce bias at all stages of the review
process. Reviews registered with organisations such as Campbell and Cochrane are particularly
reliable, as all authors are required to adhere to the same high standards of conduct and reporting.
The stages in conducting a review are:

1. Define your question and ideally register your proposed review title with Campbell or similar
2. Specify and publish your proposed methodology in advance in the form of a protocol
3. Conduct a thorough search of the literature
4. Screen your search results against your pre-specified selection criteria to identify included
studies
5. Appraise the quality of studies found
6. Synthesise the evidence, this is where meta-analysis may or may not come in
7. Publish and disseminate your review
8. Update the review as new evidence is produced

You can see that a systematic review involves much more than simply putting the numbers together.
It is a detailed, transparent and sometimes (often) time consuming process.

Why would a systematic review not include a meta-analysis?

Systematic reviews will often, but not always, contain a meta-analysis of numerical data from the
included studies. Meta-analysis would be a poor choice if your review question is better answered
with qualitative data, such as “How acceptable are psychosocial interventions for maltreated children”
or “how do self-help group programs impact on women’s empowerment?”

Conducting a meta-analysis would be a bad idea if your studies are too different to combine. Imagine
you are conducting a systematic review on the effect of listening to music while studying on children’s
exam performance and you find one study on classical music, two on pop music including primary
school children and teenagers respectively, another on death metal and a fifth on 80’s synth classics.
Would you combine these in a single meta-analysis or would you decide that the interventions (music
type) and populations (age of children) are too dissimilar to combine and opt for a narrative synthesis
instead?  Deciding which studies you can and cannot combine in a meta-analysis will depend on the
question you are asking and you should define the process for deciding in advance in your review
protocol.

Conducting a meta-analysis may not always be sensible – even if you set out to do one. By specifying
your approach to meta-analysis in advance, you can reduce the possibility of introducing bias and
avoid making decisions retrospectively based on the studies or results you find. This is why spending
time on your protocol and thinking through the analytic approach before beginning your systematic
review is time well spent.

Tip 1: Beware of meta-analyses that do not follow a systematic and transparent process for
identifying and selecting which studies to include in analysis

Tip 2: When developing a systematic review title focus on the question you really want to answer,
there is no need to constrain yourself to numerical data that can be meta-analysed.

Tip 3: Specify your analysis plan in advance and be transparent in reporting your methods. Following
the appropriate reporting guidelines (PRISMA) and standards (MECCIR) is an easy way to keep you
right.

Tip 4: Thinking of conducting a systematic review? Contact us for advice and support to conduct a
Campbell Systematic Review.

Blog post written by Jennifer Hanratty

You might also like