Title: Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis
Authors: Davey, Jonathan
Turner, Rebecca M
Clarke, Mike J
Higgins, Julian PT
Issue Date: 24-Nov-2011
Abstract: Abstract Background Cochrane systematic reviews collate and summarise studies of the effects of healthcare interventions. The characteristics of these reviews and the meta-analyses and individual studies they contain provide insights into the nature of healthcare research and important context for the development of relevant statistical and other methods. Methods We classified every meta-analysis with at least two studies in every review in the January 2008 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) according to the medical specialty, the types of interventions being compared and the type of outcome. We provide descriptive statistics for numbers of meta-analyses, numbers of component studies and sample sizes of component studies, broken down by these categories. Results We included 2321 reviews containing 22,453 meta-analyses, which themselves consist of data from 112,600 individual studies (which may appear in more than one meta-analysis). Meta-analyses in the areas of gynaecology, pregnancy and childbirth (21%), mental health (13%) and respiratory diseases (13%) are well represented in the CDSR. Most meta-analyses address drugs, either with a control or placebo group (37%) or in a comparison with another drug (25%). The median number of meta-analyses per review is six (inter-quartile range 3 to 12). The median number of studies included in the meta-analyses with at least two studies is three (inter-quartile range 2 to 6). Sample sizes of individual studies range from 2 to 1,242,071, with a median of 91 participants. Discussion It is clear that the numbers of studies eligible for meta-analyses are typically very small for all medical areas, outcomes and interventions covered by Cochrane reviews. This highlights the particular importance of suitable methods for the meta-analysis of small data sets. There was little variation in number of studies per meta-analysis across medical areas, across outcome data types or across types of interventions being compared.
Description: RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are.
URI: http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/240765
Other Identifiers: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-160
Appears in Collections:Scholarly Works - Public Health

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
1471-2288-11-160.xml100.8 kBXMLView/Open
1471-2288-11-160.pdf305.58 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Additional resources for this item
search for alternative versions in eresources@cambridge
retrieve citation metadata in EndNote format

This item has been accessed 258 times.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.