A practical guide to do primary research on meta analysis methodology - Pubrica

Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 1
A Practical Guide to Do Primary Research on Meta Analysis Methodology
Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head,
Technical Operations, Pubrica
sales@pubrica.com
In-Brief
Conventional meta analysis research
techniques are extended to accommodate
methods and practices found in basic
research. Apart from clinical research,
where consolidation efforts are facilitated
by systematic review and meta analysis
research, basic science occasionally use
such rigorous quantitative
methods. Pubrica blog explains, meta-
analyses offer informed estimates for
biological consequences and the range of
their variability, which are essential for the
hypothesis generation and evidence-driven
design of translational studies, as well as
the development of computational models.
Keywords: meta analysis research,
statistical data analysis, systematic review
meta analysis, how to perform a meta
analysis, meta analysis writing service,
meta analysis services, meta analysis
services.
I. INTRODUCTION
Evidence-based practise aims to combine
the best evidence with clinical and patient
expertise. Systematic reviews and meta-
analyses are necessary tools for combining
evidence needed for clinical decision
making and policy. Systematic reviews help
combine available literature using specific
search parameters followed by logical
synthesis of multiple primary studies and
critical appraisal. Meta-analysis denotes the
statistical analysis of the data from other
independent fundamental studies that focus
on the same question. The objective is to
create an estimation about the studied
phenomenon, for example, the intervention's
effectiveness. In clinical research,
systematic reviews and meta-analyses act as
an essential part of evidence-based
medicine.
However, in fundamental science, efforts
taken to evaluate literature review in such a
quantitative and rigorous form are rare, and
narrative reviews are prevalent. The
manuscript aims to offer a brief
computational resource, theoretical
foundation and workflow outline for
accomplishing a systematic or rapid review
monitored by a meta-analysis of primary
research studies. Meta-analyses can be a
difficult undertaking, requiring tedious
screening and statistical understanding.
There are various guides found which
outline how to undertake a meta-analysis in
clinical research.
II. META-ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
1. Search and Selection Strategies
The first stage of any review contains
formulating a primary objective in the form
of a research question or hypothesis.
Reviewers must clearly define the review's
aim before starting preceding the project,
which helps decrease the risk of data
dredging, where commentators later assign

meaning to essential findings. Precaution
must be taken since the search strategies are
formulated for the primary objectives to
define the secondary objective, which may
not completely encompass the body of the
work needed to address the secondary
objective. Based on the purpose of a review,
reviewers select a rapid or systematic
review. The meta-analytic methodology is
similar to systematic and rapid reviews; the
scope of literature assessed tends to be
significantly narrower for rapid reviews
allowing the project to progress faster.
2. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Systematic reviews include a comprehensive
search strategy that allows the reviewers to
recognize all related studies in a particular
topic. Systematic reviews have the potential
to produce information-rich databases which
permit extensive secondary analysis.
Examine the pool of existing information.
Search standards must be sensitive enough
not to miss relevant studies. Important terms
and concepts conveyed as index terms and
synonymous keywords, such as Medical
Subject Headings, must be collected using
Boolean operators AND, OR and NOT.
Wildcards, Truncation and proximity
operatives can help improve the search
strategy by providing different wording for
the same concept and spelling variation.
Searching approaches can be validated using
a selection of expected relevant studies. If
some strategy fails to retrieve one among the
selected studies, the research strategy needs
further optimization. Updating the search
strategy in every iterative step continues
until the search strategy performs at a
satisfactory level. A comprehensive
prediction to return a vast number of studies
is not relevant to the topic, usually resulting
in a specificity of <10%. Hence, the starting
stage, i.e. examining through the library to
choose related studies, is time-consuming
and is open to human error. Nevertheless,
systematic reviews can provide the highest-
quality quantitative evidence synthesis to
directly inform the experimental and
computational basic, preclinical and
translational studies.
3. Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis
The objective of the rapid review, as
mentioned in the name, it helps in reducing
the time needed to synthesize the data.
Rapid reviews are an appropriate alternative
to systematic approaches if reviewers prefer
to get a general idea of the field's state
without a prolonged time investment. Search
policies are constructed by increasing search
specificity, decreasing the number of
inappropriate studies discovered by
searching comprehensiveness cost. A rapid
review's strength is its flexibility to adapt to
the reviewer's needs, resulting in a lack of
standardized methodology.
Common shortcuts made in rapid reviews
are:
 Narrow down the search criteria,
 Striking date restrictions,
 Conducting the review with a single
reviewer,

 Neglecting expert consultation (i.e.,
librarian for search strategy
development),
 Constricting language criteria (ex.
English only),
 Preceding the iterative process of
searching and search period
selection,
 Neglecting quality checklist criteria
and
 Limiting the number of databases
searched.
These shortcuts will restrict the initial pool
of studies returned from the search, thus
advancing the selection process, potentially
result in the segregation of relevant studies
and the introduction of selection bias. Rapid
reviews do not reflect detriment quality or
synthesize misrepresentative results.
While there is consent that rapid reviews do
not sacrifice quality or synthesize
misrepresentative results, it is suggested that
critical outcomes be later confirmed by
systematic review. Nevertheless, rapid
reviews are a feasible alternative when
parameters for computational modelling
need to be valued. While systematic and
rapid reviews rely on various strategies to
select the related studies, the statistical
methods used to produce data from the
systematic and rapid review are identical.
4. Screening and Selection
When the literature search is wide-ranging,
articles are taken out and stored in a place
manager for screening. Before research
screening, the addition and elimination
criteria must be defined to ensure constancy
in study identification and recovery,
especially when multiple reviewers are
involved. The serious steps in screening and
selection are
 Eliminating duplicates
 Screening for related studies by title
and abstract, and
 Inspecting full texts to make sure
they fulfil the suitability criteria.
Some reference managers accessible,
including Mendeley and Rayyan, exactly
developed to help with screening systematic
reviews.
However, 98% of journalists report using
Endnote, Reference Manager or RefWorks
to prepare their reviews. Reference
managers often have duplication functions;
however, these can be tedious and error-
prone. A protocol for faster and more
reliable duplication in Endnote has been
recently proposed. The articles' selection
should be suitably broad, not subject to a
single lab or author. In primary research
articles, it is collective to find data sets
reused by the same group in multiple
studies. Therefore, additional securities
should be taken when determining to contain
multiple studies published by a single group.
Screening and selection procedure, the
reviewer acquires a complete list of good
full-text manuscripts. The full screening and
selection procedure should be stated in a
PRISMA diagram, which maps the data
flow throughout the review according to
arranged guidelines published elsewhere.
III. CONCLUSION
Meta-analytic methods permit reviewers to
quantitatively evaluate and synthesize
results across studies to obtain data on
statistical significance and relevance—
systematic reviews of fundamental research
data which have the potential of producing
information-rich databases which allow
extensive secondary analysis.
Our meta-analyses experts provide a meta-
analysis writing service that will ensure a
thorough review of your research question,
conduct a systematic review, data extraction,
and standardization and weighting studies
and finally select and apply an appropriate

model to compare effect sizes across
different studies.
REFERENCES
1. Efthimiou, O. (2018). Practical guide to the meta-
analysis of rare events. Evidence-based mental health,
21(2), 72-76.
2. Paterson, B. L., Thorne, S. E., Canam, C., & Jillings,
C. (2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research: A
practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis
(Vol. 3). Sage.

A practical guide to do primary research on meta analysis methodology - Pubrica

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to A practical guide to do primary research on meta analysis methodology - Pubrica

Similar to A practical guide to do primary research on meta analysis methodology - Pubrica (20)

More from Pubrica

More from Pubrica (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A practical guide to do primary research on meta analysis methodology - Pubrica