Meta-analysis vs Systematic review: Differences, Similarities, and 9 Simple Steps to Write

Meta-analysis vs systematic review

Meta-analysis and systematic review are two types of research methods commonly used in scientific literature to summarize and synthesize existing evidence on a particular topic. Both methods aim to provide a comprehensive and objective summary of the available evidence, but they differ in their approach and the type of data they analyze. In this blog post, we will explore meta-analysis vs systematic review, with thier differences, similarities, advantages, limitations, how to write, and how to decide which method to use in your research.

What is a Meta-Analysis?

A meta-analysis is a statistical method used to combine the results of multiple studies on a particular topic. It involves a systematic review of the literature, similar to a systematic review, but also includes a quantitative analysis of the results. Meta-analyses use statistical techniques to pool the results of individual studies, calculate summary effect sizes, and assess the overall strength of the evidence.

Meta-analysis can be conducted using different statistical methods, depending on the type of data and the research question. The most common methods include fixed-effects models and random-effects models. Fixed-effects models assume that all studies are estimating the same effect size, while random-effects models account for variability in the effect size across studies.

Advantages of Meta-Analysis:

  • Provides a quantitative summary of the available evidence
  • Increases statistical power by combining multiple studies
  • Can identify small but significant effects that may not be detectable in individual studies
  • Can assess the consistency of the results across studies
  • Can explore sources of heterogeneity and perform subgroup analyses

Limitations of Meta-Analysis:

  • Requires a sufficient number of studies with similar designs and outcomes
  • May be limited by the quality of the included studies
  • May be influenced by publication bias and selective reporting of outcomes
  • Can be complex to interpret, particularly if the studies are heterogeneous

How to Write Meta-Analysis?

Writing a meta-analysis can be a complex and time-consuming process, but it is an important way to synthesize and analyze the results of multiple studies on a particular topic. Here are the steps to follow when writing a meta-analysis:

  1. Define the research question: Start by defining the research question and the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies to be included in the meta-analysis. This will help guide your search and ensure that you are including relevant studies.
  2. Conduct a comprehensive search: Conduct a comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms related to your research question. It is important to include both published and unpublished studies to minimize publication bias.
  3. Screen the articles: After conducting the search, screen the articles for eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Start by screening the titles and abstracts, and then move on to the full-text articles. Keep track of the reasons for exclusion.
  4. Extract the data: Once you have identified the studies to be included in the meta-analysis, extract the data from each study, including study design, population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and results. This data should be recorded in a standardized data extraction form to ensure consistency and accuracy.
  5. Assess the quality of the studies: Assess the quality of the studies using a standardized tool, such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, to evaluate the risk of bias and the overall quality of the evidence.
  6. Conduct statistical analysis: Conduct statistical analysis on the data extracted from the included studies, using appropriate methods such as fixed-effect or random-effects models to calculate summary effect sizes.
  7. Evaluate heterogeneity: Evaluate heterogeneity among the included studies using appropriate methods, such as the I2 statistic, to determine the degree of variation in effect sizes across studies.
  8. Conduct sensitivity analysis: Conduct sensitivity analysis to explore the robustness of the results to different assumptions or methods used in the analysis.
  9. Interpret the results: Interpret the results of the meta-analysis, taking into account the quality of the evidence, the degree of heterogeneity, and any limitations or gaps in the literature.
  10. Write the manuscript: Write the manuscript for the meta-analysis, following the guidelines for meta-analyses set by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The manuscript should include an introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.
  11. Peer review and publication: Submit the manuscript for peer review and make revisions as necessary. Once the manuscript has been accepted for publication, make sure to follow the guidelines for reporting meta-analyses in the journal.

Writing a meta-analysis can be a complex and time-consuming process, but it is an important way to synthesize and analyze the results of multiple studies on a particular topic. By following these steps, you can ensure that your meta-analysis is comprehensive, accurate, and informative.

To learn in detail about manuscript writing, read our blog on “How to write a manuscript for a Journal in 10 simple steps

What is a Systematic Review?

A systematic review is a rigorous and systematic approach to reviewing the existing literature on a particular topic. It involves a comprehensive search of multiple databases to identify all relevant studies that meet predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The review process is guided by a protocol that outlines the research question, search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction methods, and quality assessment criteria.

Systematic review provides a summary of the available evidence on a particular topic, but they do not combine the results of individual studies quantitatively. Instead, they provide a narrative synthesis of the findings, including a description of the study designs, population characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. Systematic review also assess the quality of the included studies, the risk of bias, and the strength of the evidence.

Advantages of Systematic Review:

  • Comprehensive and rigorous approach to reviewing the evidence
  • Minimizes bias and ensures the reproducibility of the results
  • Provides a qualitative summary of the available evidence
  • Can identify gaps in the literature and highlight areas for future research
  • Systematic reviews provide a clear and transparent methodology
  • Saves time and resources

Limitations of Systematic Review:

  • Can be time-consuming and resource-intensive
  • May be limited by the availability and quality of the existing literature
  • May be limited by the heterogeneity of the included studies, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions

How to Write Systematic Review?

Writing a systematic review can be a time-consuming and complex process, but it is an important way to summarize and synthesize existing evidence on a particular topic. Here are the steps to follow when writing a systematic review:

  1. Define the research question: Start by defining the research question and the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies to be included in the review. This will help guide your search and ensure that you are including relevant studies.
  2. Conduct a comprehensive search: Conduct a comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms related to your research question. It is important to include both published and unpublished studies to minimize publication bias.
  3. Screen the articles: After conducting the search, screen the articles for eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Start by screening the titles and abstracts, and then move on to the full-text articles. Keep track of the reasons for exclusion.
  4. Extract the data: Once you have identified the studies to be included in the review, extract the data from each study, including study design, population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and results. This data should be recorded in a standardized data extraction form to ensure consistency and accuracy.
  5. Assess the quality of the studies: Assess the quality of the studies using a standardized tool, such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, to evaluate the risk of bias and the overall quality of the evidence.
  6. Synthesize the findings: Synthesize the findings from the included studies by organizing the data according to the research question and using a narrative synthesis to describe the overall findings. This should include a description of the study designs, population characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and results.
  7. Draw conclusions: Draw conclusions based on the findings of the systematic review, taking into account the quality of the evidence, the consistency of the findings, and any limitations or gaps in the literature.
  8. Write the manuscript: Write the manuscript for the systematic review, following the guidelines for systematic reviews set by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The manuscript should include an introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.
  9. Peer review and publication: Submit the manuscript for peer review and make revisions as necessary. Once the manuscript has been accepted for publication, make sure to follow the guidelines for reporting systematic reviews in the journal.

Writing a systematic review can be a complex and time-consuming process, but it is an important way to summarize and synthesize existing evidence on a particular topic. By following these steps, you can ensure that your systematic review is comprehensive, accurate, and informative.

To learn in detail about manuscript writing, read our blog on “How to write a manuscript for a Journal in 10 simple steps

Meta-analysis vs systematic review

Key Differences

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews are two types of research synthesis that are commonly used in evidence-based practice. While they are similar in many ways, there are also key differences between them. Here are the main differences between meta-analysis and systematic review:

  1. Purpose: The purpose of a systematic review is to synthesize and summarize the available evidence on a particular research question or topic. A meta-analysis, on the other hand, goes a step further and uses statistical methods to combine the results of multiple studies into a single quantitative estimate of the effect size.
  2. Study selection: Both meta-analyses and systematic reviews involve a comprehensive search of the literature, but the criteria for selecting studies may differ. Systematic reviews may include all types of studies, including qualitative and observational studies, whereas meta-analyses typically focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or other quantitative studies.
  3. Data extraction: In a systematic review, data are typically extracted from each included study in a qualitative manner, meaning that the results are described and summarized but not statistically combined. In a meta-analysis, on the other hand, data are extracted in a quantitative manner, with effect sizes and standard errors or confidence intervals calculated for each study.
  4. Statistical analysis: Systematic reviews do not typically involve statistical analysis beyond basic descriptive statistics, whereas meta-analyses use statistical methods to pool the results of the included studies and calculate summary effect sizes.
  5. Heterogeneity assessment: Both systematic reviews and meta-analyses may assess heterogeneity (i.e., variation in effect sizes across studies), but the methods used may differ. In a systematic review, heterogeneity may be assessed qualitatively through a narrative synthesis of the results. In a meta-analysis, statistical methods such as the I2 statistic may be used to quantify the degree of heterogeneity.
  6. Interpretation of results: The results of a systematic review are typically presented in a narrative format, whereas the results of a meta-analysis are presented both in narrative form and in quantitative terms (e.g., effect sizes and confidence intervals). The interpretation of the results may also differ, with systematic reviews focusing on the overall body of evidence and meta-analyses providing a more precise estimate of the effect size.

In summary, meta-analysis and systematic review are both important tools for synthesizing and summarizing the available evidence on a particular research question or topic. While they share many similarities, they also differ in their purpose, study selection criteria, data extraction and analysis methods, heterogeneity assessment, and interpretation of results. Understanding these differences is essential for selecting the appropriate research synthesis method for a given research question or topic.

Key Similarities

Meta-analysis and systematic review share some similarities in terms of their purpose and the process involved. Here are some key similarities between the two:

  1. Both are methods of evidence synthesis: Meta-analysis and systematic review are both methods used to systematically review, evaluate, and synthesize the available evidence on a specific research question.
  2. Both require a comprehensive literature search: Both methods require a comprehensive search of multiple databases to identify all relevant studies that address the research question.
  3. Both require a rigorous screening and selection process: Both methods require a rigorous screening and selection process to identify studies that meet specific inclusion criteria and exclude those that do not.
  4. Both require quality assessment of included studies: Both methods require the quality assessment of included studies to ensure that the studies are of high quality and meet specific methodological criteria.
  5. Both aim to provide an unbiased summary of the available evidence: Both methods aim to provide an unbiased summary of the available evidence on a specific research question, using a transparent and replicable methodology.
  6. Both aim to inform decision-making: Both methods aim to inform decision-making in research, policy, and practice by providing a comprehensive and rigorous summary of the available evidence.

In summary, meta-analysis and systematic review share many similarities in their purpose and process. Both methods aim to provide an evidence-based summary of the available evidence on a specific research question, using a comprehensive, transparent, and replicable methodology.

How to Decide Which Method to Use?

Deciding whether to conduct a systematic review or a meta-analysis (or both) depends on the research question and the available evidence. Here are some factors to consider when making this decision:

  1. Research question: The type of research question being asked is an important factor in deciding which method to use. If the research question is focused on summarizing the available evidence on a particular topic or intervention, a systematic review may be more appropriate. If the research question is focused on estimating the size of an effect or the strength of an association, a meta-analysis may be more appropriate.
  2. Availability of data: Meta-analyses require quantitative data from the included studies, typically in the form of effect sizes and standard errors or confidence intervals. If the available data are not quantitative, a meta-analysis may not be feasible. In this case, a systematic review that includes a narrative synthesis of the available evidence may be more appropriate.
  3. Homogeneity of studies: Meta-analyses assume that the included studies are homogeneous, meaning that they are similar enough in terms of the population, intervention, and outcomes to be combined statistically. If there is substantial heterogeneity between the included studies, a meta-analysis may not be appropriate. In this case, a systematic review that includes a narrative synthesis of the available evidence may be more appropriate.
  4. Quality of studies: The quality of the included studies is an important consideration in both systematic reviews and meta-analyses. If the quality of the included studies is low or there is a high risk of bias, the results of both types of reviews may be compromised. However, a systematic review may still be informative in this case, as it can provide a comprehensive summary of the available evidence, even if the quality is low.
  5. Time and resources: Conducting a meta-analysis is typically more time-consuming and resource-intensive than conducting a systematic review, as it requires more advanced statistical methods. If time and resources are limited, a systematic review may be more feasible.
  6. Audience: The intended audience for the review is another important factor to consider. If the audience is primarily clinicians or policy makers who need a broad overview of the available evidence, a systematic review may be more appropriate. If the audience is primarily researchers who need a more precise estimate of the effect size, a meta-analysis may be more appropriate.

In summary, deciding which method to use depends on a range of factors, including the research question, availability and homogeneity of data, quality of studies, time and resources, and intended audience. Careful consideration of these factors can help researchers choose the most appropriate method for their specific question and available evidence.

Conclusion

Meta-analysis and systematic review are two valuable methods for summarizing and synthesizing existing evidence on a particular topic. While both methods aim to provide an objective and comprehensive summary of the available evidence, they differ in their approach and the type of data they analyze. Meta-analysis provides a quantitative summary of the effect size and the overall strength of the evidence while systematic review provides a qualitative summary of the available evidence. By understanding the differences between these methods, researchers can choose the most appropriate method for their research question and contribute to the advancement of evidence-based medicine.

Let us know if you find this post helpful? Leave comment and share.

About Publisher

IR Research Publication is publisher, editorial, and profile building service provider and assists the scholars with resume, curriculum vitae, cover letter, and statement of purpose building.

If you like this article, then visit our Pharma Blog page for more such articles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

WhatsApp
LinkedIn
Share
Follow by Email
RSS