Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the medical sciences
                     Systematic reviews 
and meta analyses 
in the medical 
sciences:
Best  practice methods 
for  research syntheses
An Academic presentation by
Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical 
Operations, Pubrica  Group:
www.pubrica.com
Email: [email protected]
TODAY'S 
DISCUSSION
In brief
Introduction to medical research 
synthesis  Meta-analysis is the 
'original big data.
Assumptions involved in systematic 
reviews  Conclusion
About Pubrica
IN BRIEF
This editorial concept first gives a brief 
overview of  the history of evidence synthesis, 
then explains the  significance of reporting 
standards, lists the  sequential steps involved 
in SRs and meta-analyses,  and lists additional 
rmeesethaorcdhoelorsgical csohnocueldrnsta tkheaitnto whe
consideration  conducting and n  
psyrestsemntaintigc trheveiewress u(SltRss)o.f thei
r
When teams of with the
creovmiepweetersnceapply the most necessary
sriigonuifirctoanetverystep of the SR process, scientific
successful  SRs are the outcome.
Contd...
As a result, SRs without foresight are unlikely to 
succeed.
This blog's goal was to critically analyze the 2019 paper by Johnson, B. T., & 
Hennessy, E.
A. from the University of Connecticut's Department of Psychological Sciences, 
titled  "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the medical sciences: Best 
practice approaches  for research syntheses."
The article attempted to ascertain the types, restrictions, and instruments of 
such standards  and medical devices in graceful of the SR process's 
presumptions, including meta-analysis,  including the other SR processes
INTRODUCTION TO 
MEDICAL  RESEARCH 
SYNTHESIS
Systematic reviews (SRs), which compile data 
from  several research on a topic, are becoming 
a more vital  type of scientific communication: 
Since 2010, the  number of reports has 
increased by nearly 200 %.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic 
Reviews  and Meta-Analyses services reporting 
standards and  guidelines have just been 
approved by Social Science  & Medicine for 
writers to utilize when creating review  papers 
for publication.
Contd...
To enable the highest calibre research synthesis to be published, to allow 
readers  to judge if a specific SR "embodies mega illumination" or "mega 
error," to promote  improved scientific understanding and significant 
changes in practice.
Although the methodologies are taken in total from all of science, the 
examples are  taken from literature on health.
META-ANALYSIS IS THE  
'ORIGINAL BIG DATA
In essence, SRs combine the findings
of two or  more separate studies
sthaamte wtoepreic. cSoRnsd mucigtehdt nootn hatvhee a quantitati
 component to the ve  
highlight  under papers' conclusio
review. ns
Contd...
The phrase "meta-analysis" is frequently employed in customary 
practice to imply  that the writing of A Meta-analysis evidence has 
already been thoroughly obtained  and analyzed.
Writing Meta-analysis provide a different type that combines qualitative 
data  acquired from several research on the same issue.
Meta-reviews, in turn, are reviews about reviews.
All SRs are a kind of evidence or research syntheses, whether they be 
SRs, meta-  analyses, met synthesizes, or meta-reviews.
ASSUMPTIONS INVOLVED  
IN SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
The history that just ended omitted a 
concrete  explanation of how a lack of rigour 
may jeopardize  SRs.
We discuss the fundamentals of systematic  
reviewing, divided into seven primary 
processes,  which Fig. 1 succinctly 
summarizes to put these  presumptions into 
context.
Contd...
The assumptions used in systematic reviews are organized per the SR 
process  phase in this section.
SR teams frequently improve their approaches as the process goes on, 
which  requires going back and repeating previous parts of the process 
until the SR is  finished with enough quality.
This is the first sign that the methods are highly synergistic.
The advice we offer in this article's following paragraphs is summarized 
in Table 1.
Fig:01 The meta-analysis process is depicted in seven steps that build on 
each other  and sometimes must be repeated as feedback learned during 
the process emerges.
Table 1 Methodological steps necessary to conduct systematic reviews (SRs), along with 
best-practice  recommendations (the text expands on these points)
FORMULATING THE 
RESEARCH  PROBLEM
The SR team formulates the research challenge in Step 1, which 
depends on the  members' comprehension of the literature from both a 
substantive and techniques  viewpoint (including statistical 
assumptions).
Importantly, the SR will not be worthwhile to complete if the team has 
this clear  notion. From a practical aspect, it is important to note that 
Step 1 is essential: The  more resources required to review within a 
reasonable timeline depends on how  extensive the research problem is.
Therefore, a poorly constructed SR might result in losing essential 
resources.
FINDING AND SELECTING STUDIES
Step 2 of the SR process involves comprehensive literature searches to 
identify as  much relevant research as possible.
As previously said, a well-developed research statement will speed up 
the finding  of studies that meet the inclusion criteria and are eligible for 
evaluation.
There are several exceptions to this rule. Of course, writing a Meta-Analy
sis  manuscript: Since studies may not include mental health features in 
their titles and  abstracts, it was essential to acquire many more full-text 
reports for analysis in HIV  preventive SR.
CODING STUDIES FOR SUBSTANTIVE 
AND  METHODOLOGICAL FEATURES
The most intriguing parts of the investigations, which the SR team 
anticipates  would attenuate impacts, are captured through coding 
methods resulting from a  well-formulated research challenge for the 
Clinical Meta-Analysis Experts.
For instance, SRs of treatments frequently look at the behaviour 
modification  strategies used to enhance participants' health; another 
frequent factor is the  treatment dose.
CALCULATING EFFECT SIZES
SRs pool the findings, either qualitatively or quantitatively. Effect sizes 
may look at  connections between variables, mean levels of phenomena, 
or both in a meta-  analysis, which pools findings from several studies.
Authors should also include individual effect estimates for each research 
or the  available quantitative data from the reports in an SR without 
meta-analysis that  focuses on outcomes rather than just qualitative 
explanations of results.
ANALYZING THE SYSTEMATIC 
REVIEW  DATABASE
Non-independence across studies in a review is another issue that may 
need to be  addressed at various stages in a traditional meta-analysis.
The firstinstance occurs when effect estimates
are determined because, if non-  independence is neglected, 
improper study weighting may follow.
RE-ANALYSIS, DEVELOPMENT, OR  
CRITICISM
Some literature evolves quickly, superseding existing SRs and
increasing the  value of updated SRs.
If the original SR's methodologies were of good quality, the prior SR's 
database, if  accessible, may be reanalyzed to assess these hypotheses.
Alternatively, an SR team may hypothesize that dimensions not taken 
into account  in a published SR could assist explain observed 
heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
In this article, we tried to offer best practice  
guidelines for research synthesis. Table 1 
highlights  a list of quick "does and don'ts." 
While it is  significant to note that these 
quality inventories have  flaws and may not 
always reflect the state of  science, we have 
highlighted several tools to aid  researchers in 
research synthesis. When an SR  uses the 
most reliable techniques to focus on a  
significant body of literature, the findings may 
create  a clear-cut statement that directs 
future study and  policy choices for years to 
come.
ABOUT PUBRICA
The team of researchers and writers at 
Pubrica  creates scientific and medical 
research articles that  may serve as 
invaluable resources for practitioners  and 
authors.
Using the reader to inform them of the gaps 
in the  chosen study subject, Pubrica medical 
writers assist  you in writing and editing the 
introduction.
Our professionals know the order in which 
the broad  subject, the issue, and the 
background are followed  by the topic where 
the hypothesis is stated.
REFERENCES
1.Johnson, Blair T., and Emily A. Hennessy. "Systematic reviews and meta-
analyses in the  health sciences: Best practice methods for research syntheses." 
Social Science & Medicine  233 (2019): 237-251.
2.Siddaway, Andy P., Alex M. Wood, and Larry V. Hedges. "How to do a 
systematic review:  a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative 
reviews, meta-analyses, and  meta-syntheses." Annual review of psychology 70 
(2019): 747-770.
3.Brugha, Traolach S., et al. "Methodology and reporting of systematic reviews 
and meta-  analyses of observational studies in psychiatric epidemiology: 
systematic review." The  British Journal of Psychiatry 200.6 (2012): 446-453.
Contact 
Us
UNITED KINGDOM
+44 1618186353
INDIA
+91-9884350006
EMAIL
[email protected]