Evidence Hub

Clinical decision-making: systematic reviews and meta-analysis

Fernández Pérez C

Neurologia (Barcelona, Spain), 2003

Abstract

Randomized clinical trials and mainly meta-analysis, have become the gold standard in the assessment of drug efficacy. A meta-analysis is a systematic review that uses statistical techniques to combine and summarize results of previous studies. Thereby, their design helps to identify and explain inconsistencies in the results of previous studies. One of the most complex and valid designs consists in obtaining the original database for each study (published or not) performing a > or meta-analysis of individualized patient data. This type of meta-analysis avoids the partiality which may originate from the non-publication of nonsignificant studies. The future tendency would recommend that investigators, clinicians, reviewers, journal editors and sponsors agree on publication criteria other than positive p values such as clinical validity and clinical relevance.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free