SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES

Order Instructions

Systematic reviews are an umbrella term for a number of different review designs, all with specific goals (e.g., identify scope of available research or gaps, reduce bias, statistically combine and analyze results from multiple studies). They differ from basic literature review articles that qualitatively summarize the literature on a topic and do not necessarily have inclusion or exclusion criteria.

Epidemiological meta-analyses are quantitative types of systematic reviews, in which summary measures of exposure–outcome associations are calculated based on the results of a selection of existing studies. In other words, a meta-analysis statistically combines the results from multiple studies, with the goal of calculating more precise measures, increasing sample size, or reducing bias in the combined results. The goal of meta-analysis is to obtain a more robust understanding of the relationship between an exposure and a health outcome than could be obtained from a single study. While meta-analyses are considered to be strong research designs because of their formal, statistical characteristics, they are not without weakness or critics. For instance, existing studies included in a meta-analysis may have strengths and limitations of their own.

For this Discussion, you examine the validity and strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in epidemiological research.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources

Required Readings

 Driscoll, A., Grant, M. J., Carroll, D., Dalton, S., Deaton, C., Jones, I., Lehwaldt, D., McKee, G., Munyombwe, T., & Astin, F. (2018). The effect of nurse-to-patient ratios on nurse-sensitive patient outcomes in acute specialist units: A systematic review and meta-analysisLinks to an external site.. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 17(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515117721561

 Seidler, A. L., Hunter, K. E., Cheyne, S., Berlin, J. A., Ghersi, D., & Askie, L. M. (2020). Prospective meta-analyses and Cochrane’s role in embracing next-generation methodologiesLinks to an external site.. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10, ED000145. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000145

 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsLinks to an external site.. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001

 Haidich, A. B. (2010). Meta-analysis in medical researchLinks to an external site.. Hippokratia, 14 (Suppl. 1), 29–37. https://www.hippokratia.gr/images/PDF/14Sup1/699.pdf

 Melnyk, B. M., Kelly, S. A., Stephens, J., Dhakal, K., McGovern, C., Tucker, S., Hoying, J., McRae, K., Ault, S., Spurlock, E., & Bird, S. B. (2020). Interventions to improve mental health, well-being, physical health, and lifestyle behaviors in physicians and nurses: A systematic reviewLinks to an external site.. American Journal of Health Promotion, 34(8), 929–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120920451

 Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-synthesesLinks to an external site.. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803