Interpreting and understanding meta-analysis graphs

Ideally, clinical decision making ought to be based on the latest evidence available. However, to keep abreast with the continuously increasing number of publications in health research, a primary health care professional would need to read an unsurmountable number of articles every day covered in more than 13 million references and over 4800 biomedical and health journals in Medline alone.1 With the view to address this challenge, the systematic review method was developed.2 This article provides a practical guide for appraising systematic reviews for relevance to clinical practice and interpreting meta-analysis graphs as part of quantitative systematic reviews. �

[1]  K. Bailey,et al.  Inter-study differences: how should they influence the interpretation and analysis of results? , 1987, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  L. Hedges,et al.  A Brief History of Research Synthesis , 2002, Evaluation & the health professions.

[3]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  Trisha Greenhalgh,et al.  How to read a paper: Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) , 1997 .

[5]  J. Fleiss,et al.  The statistical basis of meta-analysis. , 1993, Statistical methods in medical research.