Meta analysis is a very common way of bringing together data to help us decide which treatments might be best. BUT, you have to take care when interpreting them - there's a lot more to it than just looking which side of the line the little black diamond is on! How do you construct a search for a systematic review?Can you trust the result of a meta analysis? How do you know if it has been done well? How to recognise different kinds of bias, how to interpret a forest plot, and funnel plot and a bubble plot. What is the I squared statistic and what does it tell you about the data and how much to trust the result? These and many more things to do with these common but complex analyses is explained by Brett Doleman, statistical guru!
Views: 15973 school of surgery
In this video, I go over how to interpret the results of a meta-analysis.
Views: 44153 Tara Bishop MD
Summary: This video explains why systematic reviews are important and how they are done. This includes an explanation of how the effects of interventions are compared in order to provide evidence. Attribution/credits: Prepared by the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group, La Trobe University and generously support by Cochrane Australia. Written by Jack Nunn and Sophie Hill. cccrg.cochrane.org. Animation by Shakira Moss, Doodler Animation - doodler.com.au
Views: 109742 Cochrane
✪✪✪✪✪ WORK FROM HOME! Looking for WORKERS for simple Internet data entry JOBS. $15-20 per hour. SIGN UP here - http://jobs.theaudiopedia.com ✪✪✪✪✪ ✪✪✪✪✪ The Audiopedia Android application, INSTALL NOW - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wTheAudiopedia_8069473 ✪✪✪✪✪ What is META-ANALYSIS? What does META-ANALYSIS mean? META-ANALYSIS meaning - META-ANALYSIS definition - META-ANALYSIS explanation. Source: Wikipedia.org article, adapted under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ license. The basic tenet of a meta-analysis is that there is a common truth behind all conceptually similar scientific studies, but which has been measured with a certain error within individual studies. The aim in meta-analysis then is to use approaches from statistics to derive a pooled estimate closest to the unknown common truth based on how this error is perceived. In essence, all existing methods yield a weighted average from the results of the individual studies and what differs is the manner in which these weights are allocated and also the manner in which the uncertainty is computed around the point estimate thus generated. In addition to providing an estimate of the unknown common truth, meta-analysis has the capacity to contrast results from different studies and identify patterns among study results, sources of disagreement among those results, or other interesting relationships that may come to light in the context of multiple studies. Meta-analysis can be thought of as "conducting research about previous research." Meta-analysis can only proceed if we are able to identify a common statistical measure that is shared among studies, called the effect size, which has a standard error so that we can proceed with computing a weighted average of that common measure. Such weighting usually takes into consideration the sample sizes of the individual studies, although it can also include other factors, such as study quality. A key benefit of this approach is the aggregation of information leading to a higher statistical power and more robust point estimate than is possible from the measure derived from any individual study. However, in performing a meta-analysis, an investigator must make choices many of which can affect its results, including deciding how to search for studies, selecting studies based on a set of objective criteria, dealing with incomplete data, analyzing the data, and accounting for or choosing not to account for publication bias. Meta-analyses are often, but not always, important components of a systematic review procedure. For instance, a meta-analysis may be conducted on several clinical trials of a medical treatment, in an effort to obtain a better understanding of how well the treatment works. Here it is convenient to follow the terminology used by the Cochrane Collaboration, and use "meta-analysis" to refer to statistical methods of combining evidence, leaving other aspects of 'research synthesis' or 'evidence synthesis', such as combining information from qualitative studies, for the more general context of systematic reviews.
Views: 10855 The Audiopedia
Knowing how to interpret an odds ratio (OR) allows you to quickly understand whether a public health intervention works and how big an effect it has. For example, how effective is the flu vaccine in preventing people from getting the flu? Using hypothetical data, How to Calculate an Odds Ratio shows how an OR helps determine, on average, how many people who got the flu shot came down with the flu, versus the number of people who did not get the flu shot. The video explains how to calculate and interpret an OR, and decide whether it indicates a positive or negative outcome. An OR of “1” would mean that the flu shot made no difference. So, if the outcome is something we were trying to increase, such as getting the flu shot in the first place, a positive outcome would be indicated by an OR of greater than 1. But, if the intervention is intended to decrease something, such as getting sick with the flu, an OR of less than 1 would show a positive outcome. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools is funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada and affiliated with McMaster University. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Public Health Agency of Canada. NCCMT is one of six National Collaborating Centres (NCCs) for Public Health. The Centres promote and improve the use of scientific research and other knowledge to strengthen public health practices and policies in Canada.
Views: 13722 The NCCMT
Victoria Goode, Clinical Informationist, briefly explores the differences between two often-confused review searches. (Dir. Alonzo LaMont, Camera Chris Henry)
Views: 5216 Welch Medical Library
The distinction between a systematic literature review and a literature review can often be confusing. This video distinguishes between the two and summarizes the process involved in conducting a systematic literature review in the context of a major research paper. This video features the song Little Candle by Stefan Kartenberg featuring Admiral Bob available under a Creative Commons license at http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/JeffSpeed68/55222. The music has been modified to fit the length of this video.
Views: 44827 Research Shorts
Meta-Analysis | Common mistakes and how to avoid them Part 1 | Fixed effects vs. random effects
Views: 21014 Michael Borenstein
Do you know when to use different types of reviews in public health decision making? Do you know the differences between a literature review, a systematic review, and a meta-analysis? Using an imaginary campaign to promote of healthy eating among adolescents as an example, this video describes how these reviews are created. You will see why combining findings from studies gives you a more accurate and generalizable understanding of what to expect from an intervention. Systematic reviews combine relevant research studies in a systematic way to answer a specific research question with minimal bias. They tell you whether or not an intervention is effective. Meta-analyses are similar to systematic reviews, but go one step further: they provide a numerical summary of the combined findings. In addition to whether or not an intervention works, meta-analyses can tell you the size of the intervention effect. Literature reviews, on the other hand, summarize multiple studies without using a systematic process for identifying, including, or combining studies. This type of review can lead to biases in the summary. Different types of reviews can affect how much confidence you can have in the findings. There can be thousands of single studies that each look at small portions of the population. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide information based on all available studies making them powerful aids for evidence-informed decision making in public health. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools is funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada and affiliated with McMaster University. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Public Health Agency of Canada. NCCMT is one of six National Collaborating Centres (NCCs) for Public Health. The Centres promote and improve the use of scientific research and other knowledge to strengthen public health practices and policies in Canada.
Views: 5011 The NCCMT
This is the first part of a Cochrane Learning Live webinar which highlighted the differences between rapid reviews and systematic reviews. A research program on rapid reviews was described and practical recommendations on doing rapid reviews was outlined, focusing on the Guide to Rapid Reviews, which was published by the Alliance, World Health Organization.
Views: 212 Cochrane Training
This video explains how to interpret data presented in a forest plot. Described by David Slawson, MD, Professor, University of Virginia. From the Making Decisions Better: The Information Mastery Curriculum and Assessment Program, an evidence-based medicine teaching program from Clinical Information Sciences, http://ClinicalInformationSciences.com.
Views: 33468 Clinical Information Sciences
Information Literacy for SP1203
Views: 854 nuslibraries
A systemic review is a concise summary of all the best evidence on a specific question. Systematic reviews are scientific investigations in their own right and are frequently as demanding as conducting primary research. For more methods resources see: http://www.methods.manchester.ac.uk
Views: 9102 methodsMcr
Tutorial on how to efficiently search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on PubMed
Views: 115 Ganesalingam Narenthiran
In Session 2 of the KTDRR Online Workshop: Methods for a qualitative systematic review, Michael A. Saini, PhD, endowed Factor-Inwentash Chair of Law and Social Work at the University of Toronto, provides a more in-depth discussion on the methodology of a qualitative evidence review. In particular, he covers the process from posing an initial question suitable for a qualitative review to extracting and assessing qualitative information. The webinar finishes with an outline of major methodological, qualitative approaches to research synthesis. More information can be found http://www.ktdrr.org/training/workshops/qual/session2/index.html
Views: 5420 KTDRR and KTER
Quality vs. Evidence vs. Research vs. Innovation: Embracing All Types of Clinical Inquiry Learn from the creators of the clinical InQuERI model to understand the difference between all types of clinical inquiry, that is: quality, evidence, research, and innovation! Watch to learn how clinical inquiry ties back to your institution’s standards of practice and more, while learning how to effectively use JBI! Now in 9 separate parts for your convenience! 1. An Introduction and Explanation of Magnet 2. The UCSF Clinical InQuERI Model Part 1 3. The UCSF Clinical InQuERI Model Part 2 4. What are Systematic Reviews and Literature Reviews? 5. Why Does Clinical Inquiry Matter? 6. What is the Joanna Briggs Institute? 7. The 5 Steps of EBP, Part 1 8. The 5 Steps of EBP, Part 2 9. An Overview of Joanna Briggs Institute Resources Speaker: Daphne Stannard RN, PhD, CCNS UCSF Medical Center Director & Chief Nurse Researcher
Views: 4713 OvidWoltersKluwer
Cooperstein R, Haneline M. Systematic review and meta-analysis: The difference between Tuffier’s Line and the palpatory iliac crest. 8th Annual Sacro Occipital Technique Research Conference: New Orleans, Louisiana. May 13-14, 2016: 76-80 Objective: The primary goals of this study were to do a systematic review of the literature and perform meta-analyses on patient sub-groups on the location of the iliac crest in imaging (Tuffier’s Line) vs. palpation studies; and to rate the quality of the included literature. Methods: Relevant citations were retrieving by searching biomedical databases, and rated for quality using the QUADAS instrument for palpation studies, and the Arrivé instrument for the imaging studies. Meta-analyses were performed on the full datasets as well as for subsets based on various patient demographics. Results: Despite the fact that our study found the imaged crest 0.3 levels more caudal in females, the palpated crest is almost the same for both genders, at the L3-4 interspace. It remains possible to use the palpated iliac crest level, so long as it is understood to identify L3 on average rather than L4 or L4-5. Conclusion: This analysis confirmed the imaged iliac crests lie closest to the L4-5 interspace in females, and the L4 spinous process in males; whereas the spinal level corresponding to the palpated iliac crest is on average the L3-4 interspace for both males and females.
Views: 85 SOTO-USA
A Standardized Mean Difference, or SMD for short, is a summary statistic used when the studies in a meta-analysis assess the same outcome but measure it in different ways.* An SMD is not tied to any specific unit of measurement, so it can be challenging to know how to interpret it, and how to use it to inform your public health decisions. In this seven-minute video, we invite you to roll up your sleeves and conquer SMDs. We also discuss why standardized mean differences are used in meta-analyses and how to interpret SMDs that are reported as positive or negative values. The video uses the example of teen mental health to demonstrate how an SMD is calculated. Greater understanding of SMDs will help you apply evidence in your practice, contributing to enhanced public health outcomes. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools is funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada and affiliated with McMaster University. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Public Health Agency of Canada. NCCMT is one of six National Collaborating Centres (NCCs) for Public Health. The Centres promote and improve the use of scientific research and other knowledge to strengthen public health practices and policies in Canada.
Views: 8150 The NCCMT
Course in Meta analysis done by doctor Sulaiman Hamarneh M.D. from Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School. link for Jordanian meta-analysis club groub https://www.facebook.com/groups/RoyaMAclub/ link for Roya Research Institute page https://www.facebook.com/pages/Roya-Research-Institute/774440309318013?sk=timeline
Views: 1002 ahmad shahwan
Information Literacy for SP1203
Views: 1174 nuslibraries
This video explains the difference between summary and synthesis reviews. From the Making Decisions Better: The Information Mastery Curriculum and Assessment Program, an evidence-based medicine teaching program from Clinical Information Sciences, http://ClinicalInformationSciences.com.
Views: 629 Clinical Information Sciences
This video is a presentation delivered by Dr Mark Simmonds from Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK, during a Cochrane Learning Live webinar organized by the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group, with the support from Cochrane Learning & Support Department. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses generally require updating as new studies become available; this requires multiple, repeated meta-analyses. This increases the risk of attaining spurious statistical significance in each analysis. As updating of meta-analyses becomes both more common and more frequent there is an increasing risk that meta-analysis results may be misinterpreted, particularly if readers are unaware of the updating process. In this presentation, Dr Mark Simmonds describes several methods to address this problem when meta-analyses are repeatedly updated, which have been assessed using a formal simulation study, and by applying methods to a range of recently-updated systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library.
Views: 235 Cochrane Training
長庚大學臨醫所臨床流行病學100學年度下學期 長庚紀念醫院急診醫學部一般醫學系 陳冠甫醫師
Views: 1372 Kuan-Fu Chen
This video gives a simple overview of the most common types of epidemiological studies, their advantages and disadvantages. These include ecological, case-series, case control, cohort and interventional studies. It also looks at systematic reviews and meta-analysis. This video was created by Ranil Appuhamy Voiceover - James Clark -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: These videos are provided for educational purposes only. Users should not rely solely on the information contained within these videos and is not intended to be a substitute for advice from other relevant sources. The author/s do not warrant or represent that the information contained in the videos are accurate, current or complete and do not accept any legal liability or responsibility for any loss, damages, costs or expenses incurred by the use of, or reliance on, or interpretation of, the information contained in the videos.
Views: 243399 Let's Learn Public Health
http://www.stomponstep1.com/cohort-case-control-meta-analysis-cross-sectional-study-designs/ Based on the types of bias that are inherent in some study designs we can rank different study designs based on their validity. The types of research studies at the top of the list have the highest validity while those at the bottom have lower validity. In most cases if 2 studies on the same topic come to different conclusions, you assume the trial of the more valid type is correct. However, this is not always the case. Any study design can have bias. A very well designed and executed cohort study can yield more valid results than a clinical trial with clear deficiencies. • Meta-analysis of multiple Randomized Trials (Highest Validity) • Randomized Trial • Prospective Cohort Studies • Case Control Studies or Retrospective Cohort • Case Series (Lowest Validity) Meta-analysis is the process of taking results from multiple different studies and combining them to reach a single conclusion. Doing this is sort of like having one huge study with a very large sample size and therefore meta-analysis has higher power than individual studies. Clinical trials are the gold standard of research for therapeutic and preventative interventions. The researchers have a high level of control over most factors. This allows for randomization and blinding which aren't possible in many other study types. Participant's groups are assigned by the researcher in clinical trials while in observational studies "natural conditions" (personal preference, genetics, social determinants, environment, lifestyle ...) assign the group. As we will see later, the incidence in different groups is compared using Relative Risk (RR). Cohort Studies are studies where you first determine whether or not a person has had an exposure and then you monitor the occurrence of health outcomes overtime. It is the observational study design with the highest validity. Cohort is just a fancy name for a group, and this should help you remember this study design. You start with a group of people (some of whom happen to have an exposure and some who don't). Then you follow this group for a certain amount of time and monitor how often certain diseases or health outcomes arise. It is easier to conceptually understand cohort studies that are prospective. However, there are retrospective cohort studies also. In this scenario you identify a group of people in the past. You then first identify whether or not these people had the particular exposure at that point in time and determine whether or not they ended up getting the health outcomes later on. As we will see later, the incidence in different groups in a cohort study is compared using Relative Risk (RR). Case-Control Studies are retrospective and observational. You first identify people who have the health outcome of interest. Then you carefully select a group of controls that are very similar to your diseased population except they don't have that particular disease. Then you try to determine whether or not the participants from each group had a particular exposure in the past. I remember this by thinking that in a case control study you start off knowing whether a person is diseased (a case) or not diseased (a control). There isn't a huge difference between retrospective cohort and case-control. You are basically doing the same steps but in a slightly different order. However, the two study designs are used in different settings. As we will see later, the incidence in different groups in a case-control study is compared using Odds Ratio (OR). A Case-Series is a small collection of individual cases. It is an observational study with a very small sample size and no control group. Basically you are just reviewing the medical records for a few people with a particular exposure or disease. A study like this is good for very rare exposures or diseases. Obviously the small sample size and lack of a control group limits the validity of any conclusions that are made, but in certain situations this is the best evidence that is available. Cross Sectional Studies are different from the others we have discussed. While the other studies measure the incidence of a particular health outcome over time, a cross-sectional study measures Prevalence. In this observational study the prevalence of the exposure and the health outcome are measured at the same time. You are basically trying to figure out how many people in the population have the disease and how many people have the exposure at one point in time. It is hard to determine an association between the exposure and disease just from this information, but you can still learn things from these studies. If the exposure and disease are both common in a particular population it may be worth investing more resources to do a different type of study to determine whether or not there is a causal relationship.
Views: 117478 Stomp On Step 1
Use the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) to retrieve systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
Views: 946 gleesonlibraryusf
In this video, you will learn how to create and edit an extraction form in SRDR (the Systematic Review Data Repository). This demo will guide you through each step of the form creation process. SRDR is a web-based tool for the extraction and management of data for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It is also an open and searchable archive of systematic review and meta analysis data.
Views: 2918 TuftsEPC
This video is about 2.2 Meta-Analysis ES and Significance
Views: 1884 Mike Noetel Australian Sport Psychologist
S044 - S Shah, S Arora, T Athanasiou, G Atkin, R Glynne-Jones, P Mathur, A Darzi, N Sevdalis
In this lecture, Mr Clilian Clancy and Mr Mitchel Barry from the Department of General and Breast Surgery at the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital (MMUH) explain in detail what systematic reviews and meta-analysis are, how they are performed and how they shape clinical practice and drive improvement in surgical care. MMUH is a major surgical teaching and training hospital in Dublin as well as being one of Ireland's leading surgical centres in the fields of complex elective surgery, trauma and emergency surgery and adult cancer surgery.
You've probably heard of "evidence-based medicine". It's the idea that we practice based on research and data. There's another way of practicing called "eminence-based medicine". It's the idea that we listen to the person who's been around the longest or who has somehow managed to be labelled the expert. It used to be that such a person would periodically get to write a review article in some journal, and that would be how everyone learned what to do in medicine. That's a problem. We've got a solution. Systematic reviews! For those of you who want to read more or see references, look here: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/?p=57771 John Green -- Executive Producer Stan Muller -- Director, Producer Aaron Carroll -- Writer Mark Olsen -- Graphics http://www.twitter.com/aaronecarroll http://www.twitter.com/crashcoursestan http://www.twitter.com/realjohngreen http://www.twitter.com/olsenvideo
Views: 56492 Healthcare Triage
How to write a literature review. It’s easier than you might think! In this video, I demonstrate how to search the literature and identify relevant papers for your literature review. I do a pubmed search using Boolean operators and MeSH terms (these are extremely powerful tools that will help you sift through the large number of academic papers out there). So if you’re doing a master’s thesis or a PhD, or you’re doing research and writing a paper, at some point, you’ll need to do a lit review. A big part of that review is the search and this video is going to help you get that right. You might be doing a systematic literature review or meta-analysis – again, you’ll need to do a good PubMed search that identifies the right studies. Thanks to BMC !!! ----------------------------- This video was sponsored by BMC – (click here to go to BMC: https://goo.gl/RFaUA2 ). As a pioneer of open access publishing, BMC has an evolving portfolio of high-quality peer-reviewed journals including broad interest titles such as BMC Biology and BMC Medicine, specialist journals such as Malaria Journal and Microbiome, and the BMC series. BMC is committed to continual innovation to better support the needs of research communities, ensuring the integrity of the research we publish, and championing the benefits of open research. BMC is part of Springer Nature, giving us greater opportunities to help authors connect and advance discoveries across the world. I’m particularly excited about having BMC’s support because I’ve been working with them for nearly 15 years as the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Globalization and Health. I’ve been extremely impressed by them as a company that has integrity and that is truly making the world a better place. LEARN MORE about literature reviews ------------------------------------------------------------ Of course, there is more to a literature review than just the search. You need to have a structured approach to selecting paper, extracting data, writing the review itself and creating a bibliography. For more detail on these aspects of a literature review, go to www.learnmore365.com where I have a full course on literature review (it takes about 30 minutes to complete). About this channel ------------------------------ This channel posts global health and public health teaching videos and videos about how to find the right job in global health. If you haven't already, please consider subscribing to this channel and becoming part of this community. SUBSCRIBE: -------------------- Click here: https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=YourChannelNameHere LETS CONNECT: --------------------------- Twitter: @drgregmartin Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drgregmartin/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thisweekinglobalhealth/ SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL ----------------------------------------- Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/drgregmartin
Views: 96347 Global Health with Greg Martin