Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

[Systematic reviews and meta-analysis].

Gerald Gartlehner1, Claudia Wild, Philipp Mad

  • 1Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment, Wien, Austria. gerald.gartlehner@hta.lbg.ac.at

Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)
|March 12, 2008
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Cochrane Evaluation of (Semi-) Automated Review Methods (CESAR): Protocol for an adaptive platform study within reviews.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026
Same author

Area under the likelihood curve as a measure of evidential weight in nonsignificant meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026
Same author

Assessing the trustworthiness of health guidelines recommendations: the transparent, rigorous, useable, standardized, and trustworthy guide (TRUSTGUIDES) tools development.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026
Same author

Evaluating search approaches for a network meta-analysis: a case study of Epistemonikos Database of Trials, CENTRAL, and other sources.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same author

Ownership changes in the pharmaceutical industry: understanding the 2023 pharma mergers and acquisitions landscape of Europe.

Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice·2026
Same author

Evaluating evidential strength of statistically nonsignificant meta-analyses with likelihood ratios: a meta-epidemiological study.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026
Same journal

Necrotizing fasciitis of the thigh-a devastating sign of intestinal perforation.

Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)·2026
Same journal

Regenerative therapies in rehabilitation with interfaces with occupational medicine, geriatrics, and oncology: the example of extracorporeal shock wave therapy.

Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)·2026
Same journal

Cerebral toxoplasmosis in patients with peripheral B-cell lymphoma : A case series and a literature review.

Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)·2026
Same journal

Post-pandemic rebound of rotavirus and adenovirus in pediatric gastroenteritis: a 6-year antigen-based surveillance study from Turkey.

Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)·2026
Same journal

Neuroaxis involvement in Chikungunya virus infection: a retrospective case series.

Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)·2026
Same journal

A complicated case of a spinal Scedosporium apiospermum infection with a favorable outcome-case report.

Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)·2026
See all related articles

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are crucial for evidence-based medicine but vary in quality. Critically evaluating their methods ensures reliable findings for clinical decisions and health policy.

Area of Science:

  • Medical research methodology
  • Evidence synthesis
  • Clinical epidemiology

Context:

  • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses significantly influence clinical medicine and health policy.
  • They serve as objective tools for answering clinical and health policy questions.
  • These reviews synthesize vast amounts of medical knowledge.

Purpose:

  • To summarize the methodological hallmarks of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
  • To equip readers with the necessary background for critical evaluation.
  • To address the variability in methodological quality and potential for misleading results.

Summary:

  • Published systematic reviews and meta-analyses vary in methodological quality.
  • Biased results from poor-quality reviews can be misleading.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Critical appraisal of underlying methods is essential for assessing validity.

    • Impact:

    • Enhances the reliability of evidence-based medicine.
    • Improves the quality of clinical decision-making.
    • Supports informed health policy development.