To expedite the timely creation of medical practice guidelines, a meta-analytic method was developed to combine both dichotomous survival data and continuous physiologic data from multiple studies of differing experimental design, which compare the same innovative clinical intervention to standard care. An aggregate ratio, R*, of the observed treatment effect to a clinically optimal treatment effect for studies in a series is computed and compared to the 95% confidence limit for R* under the null hypothesis. Input data for continuous variables include sample means, standard errors, and sample sizes. Input data for dichotomous variables include group proportions and sizes. The analysis can be done using a simple, 1-page spreadsheet. It allows one to judge biological significance, to test for statistical significance, to compare subgroups of studies, to test for outliers, and to compute the power of the meta-analysis. These features are demonstrated for studies of interposed abdominal compression-cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
1. The Cochrane Manual. Oxford (UK): Cochrane Collaboration; 2003. Available from: URL: www.cochrane.org
2.
2. Cummins RO. American Heart Association in collaboration with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Guidelines 2000 for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: international consensus on science. Circulation. 2000;102Suppl 1:I-1-I-384.
3.
3. Hedges LV, Olkin I.Vote-counting methods in research synthesis. Psychol Bull. 1980;88:359-369.
5. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Newbury Park (CA): Sage; 1990.
6.
6. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:450-455.
7.
7. Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:248-254.
8.
8. Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology. 1999;80:1150-1156.
9.
9. Babbs CF. Simplified meta-analysis of clinical trials in resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2003;57:245-255.
10.
10. Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:881-889.
11.
11. Walter SD. Variation in baseline risk as an explanation of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1997;16:2883-2900.
12.
12. Engels EA, Schmid CH, Terrin N, Olkin I, Lau J.Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med. 2000;19:1707-1728.
13.
13. Schmid CH, Lau J, McIntosh MW, Cappelleri JC. An empirical study of the effect of the control rate as a predictor of treatment efficacy in meta-analysis of clinical trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:1923-1942.
14.
14. Wolfe FM. Meta-analysis: quantitative methods for research synthesis. In: Lewis-Beck MS, ed. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Vol. 59. Newbury Park (CA): Sage; 1986.
15.
15. Feller W.An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications. Vol. 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1957.
16.
16. Beaton GH, Martorell R, Aronson KJ, et al.Effectiveness of Vitamin A Supplementation in the Control of Young Child Morbidity and Mortality in Developing Countries. ACC/SCN state-of-the-art series nutrition policy discussion paper. Vol. 13. Suffolk (UK): Lavenham; 1993.
17.
17. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M.The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1054-1060.
18.
18. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, ORourke K, McGeer AJ, LAbbe KA. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-265.
19.
19. Hedges LV. Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychol Bull. 1982;92:490-499.
20.
20. Hedges LV. Combining independent estimators in research synthesis. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1983;36:123-131.
21.
21. Mosteller F, Rourke REK. Sturdy Statistics: Nonparametrics and Order Statistics. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley; 1973.
22.
22. Welch BL. The significance of the difference between two means when the population variances are unequal. Biometrika. 1937;29:350-362.
23.
23. Hedges LV, Pigott TD. The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 2001;6:203-217.
24.
24. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts: treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992;268:240-248.
25.
25. Kern KB, Paraskos JA. 31st Bethesda Conferenceemergency cardiac care (1999). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:825-880.
26.
26. Cummins RO. Introduction to the international guidelines 2000 for CPR and ECC. Circulation. 2000;102Suppl 1):I-1-I-11.
27.
27. Peto R.Why do we need systematic overviews of clinical trials?Stat Med. 1987;6:233-240.
28.
28. Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P.Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985;27:335-371.
29.
29. Thornton A, Lee P.Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:207-216.
30.
30. Emerson JD, Burdick E, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11:339-352.
31.
31. Crumpler TB, Yoe JH. Chemical Computations and Errors. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1940.
32.
32. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Boca Raton (FL): Chapman & Hall; 1991.
