Home
Search results “Systematic review meta analysis difference”
Intro to Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
 
16:57
Here's a brief introduction to how to evaluate systematic reviews.
Views: 139581 Rahul Patwari
Systematic Review and Meta analysis - All you ever need to know
 
01:02:16
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: 12349 school of surgery
What are systematic reviews?
 
03:24
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: 90933 Cochrane
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - How to Interpret the Results
 
07:57
In this video, I go over how to interpret the results of a meta-analysis.
Views: 38208 Tara Bishop MD
Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalysis
 
30:26
More info on www.amzn.to/1XhxciA
An Introduction to Reading Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
 
03:46
In this video, I go over the basics of systematic reviews.
Views: 994 Tara Bishop MD
Meta-Analysis using independent subgroups within studies
 
35:19
Comprehensive meta-analysis
Views: 9998 Michael Borenstein
What is META-ANALYSIS? What does META-ANALYSIS mean? META-ANALYSIS meaning & explanation
 
03:07
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: 8852 The Audiopedia
NCCMT - URE - Forest Plots - Understanding a Meta-Analysis in 5 Minutes or Less
 
05:39
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: 10665 The NCCMT
Interpreting a forest plot of a meta-analysis
 
03:41
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.
Revman tutorial
 
21:12
This video provides a basic guide for using RevMan when completing a systematic review
Views: 45894 Elissa Parkin
What is a Network Meta-analysis and how does it differ from a traditional Meta-analysis?
 
03:25
Prof Christoph Correll, Professor of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine at the Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA explains the concept behind a network meta-analysis, the difference from a meta-analysis and the methodological limitations.
Views: 217 PsychScene Hub
Systematic Review vs Meta Analysis -HQ
 
10:21
Define literature review “Traditional” or Regular Systematic Characteristics of a “systematic review” Differentiate between two of the systematic reviews
Views: 715 jamgupv
Systematic reviews and meta analysis
 
17:48
Description
Views: 259 debdavis5
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The Importance of the Literature Search
 
02:53
A rigorous systematic review begins with an exhaustive, systemtic literature search. This video describes the components to look for in the methodology section of a systematic review and/or meta-analysis that show the review is based on a high quality literature search.
Synthesis Vs. Analysis
 
04:06
-- Created using PowToon -- Free sign up at http://www.powtoon.com/join -- Create animated videos and animated presentations for free. PowToon is a free tool that allows you to develop cool animated clips and animated presentations for your website, office meeting, sales pitch, nonprofit fundraiser, product launch, video resume, or anything else you could use an animated explainer video. PowToon's animation templates help you create animated presentations and animated explainer videos from scratch. Anyone can produce awesome animations quickly with PowToon, without the cost or hassle other professional animation services require.
Views: 3614 Gianna Ceraso
PRISMA Methods Meta analysis of Observational Studies
 
10:35
This lecture is part of the Systematic Reviews course that teaches undergraduate students, PhD students and researchers how to build a systematic review or meta-analysis. Don’t hesitate to contact me for help with your review, to conduct a systematic review or meta-analysis or to organise a course on your location. Enjoy the course! Maurice Zeegers (www.systematicreviews.nl)
Views: 132 Maurice Zeegers
Methods for a Qualitative Systematic Review
 
51:32
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: 4894 KTDRR and KTER
NCCMT - URE - Types of Reviews - What kind of review do we need
 
09:26
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: 4111 The NCCMT
5 Literature search for meta-analysis
 
02:58
How do you perform a systematic literature search for a qualitative review or a meta-analysis?
Views: 930 MetaLab
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Basic data entry Means
 
26:23
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Basic data entry Means Statistics.com Week-1
Views: 13880 Michael Borenstein
Informationist Victoria Goode: Difference Between Literature Review vs. Systematic Review
 
01:44
Victoria Goode, Clinical Informationist, briefly explores the differences between two often-confused review searches. (Dir. Alonzo LaMont, Camera Chris Henry)
Views: 5026 Welch Medical Library
Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
 
03:18
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: 31139 Research Shorts
Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Medicine
 
06:16
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: 54718 Healthcare Triage
How to Interpret a Forest Plot
 
05:33
This video will discuss how to interpret the information contained in a typical forest plot.
Views: 148569 Terry Shaneyfelt
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Basic Analysis Means
 
29:17
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Basic Analysis Means
Views: 4639 Michael Borenstein
Cohort, Case-Control, Meta-Analysis, Cross-sectional Study Designs & Definition
 
09:36
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: 106856 Stomp On Step 1
Systematic Reviews
 
12:36
The difference between a systematic review and a standard literature review How to locate different review articles in PubMed Introduce the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Views: 4449 Norris Lib
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis (Allen and Dusin)
 
01:01:24
Nancy Allen and Jarrod Dusin discuss the process for doing a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. Held on Sept 1, 2017.
Views: 70 ACAAICOLA
SP1203 - Searching for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
 
08:36
Information Literacy for SP1203
Views: 1136 nuslibraries
Medical Library Association - Overview of Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis - Jehad Almasri, MD
 
03:32
This short video is providing an introduction to the systematic reviews and meta-analysis and their rationales in an easy straightforward way.
Views: 442 Jehad Almasri
Introduction to network meta-analysis
 
07:45
B ------- C
Views: 214 Ahmed Afifi
NCCMT - URE - Making Sense of a Standardized Mean Difference
 
07:35
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: 6172 The NCCMT
What are Systematic Reviews? by Professor Helen Worthington
 
38:58
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: 8159 methodsMcr
8 Effect size calculation in meta-analysis
 
07:03
What information do you need to calculate effect sizes from the Cohen's d family? Website: http://metalab.stanford.edu
Views: 1444 MetaLab
Types of Reviews
 
08:25
This video describes what a literature review is as well as the main features of three types of reviews: Narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and scoping reviews
SP1203   Searching for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis (shorten)
 
06:59
Information Literacy for SP1203
Views: 846 nuslibraries
The Steps of a Cochrane Review: an Overview
 
55:03
Recording of the March 27 2014 webinar led by Alain Mayhew What makes Cochrane Reviews different from other systematic reviews? Who and what is involved in the process? We will introduce you to the steps of a Cochrane Review and give you some practical tips for getting a review underway.
Views: 2243 PAHO TV
What are Systematic Reviews and Literature Reviews
 
04:04
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: 4037 OvidWoltersKluwer
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis (II) 系統性回顧及統合分析
 
01:16:53
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: 1502 Kuan-Fu Chen
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Tutorial Means Basic
 
48:44
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Tutorial Means Basic www.Meta-Analysis.com
Views: 46364 Michael Borenstein
Combining quantitative and qualitative evidence: why, how and when?
 
01:01:43
In part 4 of the Qualitative Research Synthesis workshop hosted by KTDRR, James Thomas, PhD, Associate Director of the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) at the University College London, introduces the concept of using mixed methods research for generating comprehensive evidence reviews. This webinar outlines approaches for combining qualitative and quantitative synthesis in a systematic review.
Views: 1772 KTDRR and KTER