Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Charlton, B. G
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Charlton, B. G
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 13, No. 4, 397-401
© Oxford University Press 1996

research-article

The uses and abuses of meta-analysis

Bruce G Charlton

Deparrment of Psychology, Ridley Building, University of Newcde upon Tyne Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK

Meta-analysis is a quantitative process of summary and interpretation which involves pooling information from independent studies concerning a single theme in order to draw conclusions. Greatly increased employment of meta-analysis is currently being advocated for clinical and policy decision making. However, the prestige of meta-analysis is based upon a false model of scientific practice. Interpreting empirical research is an extremely complex activity requiring clinical and scientific knowledge of the field in question; and teams of professional ‘meta-analysts’ with a primary skill base in information technology and biostatistics cannot take over this role. Meta-analysis is not a hypothesis-testing activity, and cannot legitimately be used to establish the reality of a putative hazard or therapy. The proper use of meta-analysis is to increase the precision of quantitative estimates of health states in populations. If used to estimate an effect, the reality of that effect should have been established by previous scientific studies. But the summary estimate from a meta-analysis can only be directly applied to a target population when the ‘meta-protocol’ and ‘meta-population’ match the target situation in all relevant particulars. These constraints can rarely be satisfied in practice, so the results of meta-analysis typically require adjustment—which is a complex, assumption-laden process that negates many of the statistical power advantages of a meta-analysis. Lacking any understanding or acknowledgement of the need for adjustment, most meta-analyses must be regarded as abuses of the technique.

Keywords. Meta-analysis, mega-trials, epidemiology, clinical science.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J Offender Ther Comp CriminolHome page
L. C. Allen, D. L. MacKenzie, and L. J. Hickman
The Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for Adult Offenders: A Methodological, Quality-Based Review
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, August 1, 2001; 45(4): 498 - 514.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.