Systematic reviews ideally provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of existing evidence from clinical studies, whilst meta-analysis combines the results of these studies to produce an overall estimate. Collectively, this makes them invaluable for clinical decision-making. Although the number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthodontics has increased, questions are often raised about their methodological soundness. In this primer, the first steps of meta-analysis are discussed, namely the choice of an effect measure to express the results of included studies, and the choice of a statistical model for the meta-analysis. Clinical orthodontic examples are given to explain the various options available, the thought process behind the choice between them and their interpretation.
AltmanDG, DeeksJJ, SackettDL. Odds ratios should be avoided when events are common. BMJ1998; 317: 1318.
2.
BorensteinM, HedgesLV, HigginsJPT, RothsteinHR. Introduction to Meta-analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 2008.
3.
DeeksJ.When can odds ratios mislead? Odds ratios should be used only in case-control studies and logistic regression analyses. BMJ1998; 317: 1155–1156.
4.
DeeksJJ. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med2002; 21: 1575–1600.
5.
DerSimonianR, LairdN.Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials1986; 7: 177–188.
6.
EngelsEA, SchmidCH, TerrinN, OlkinI, LauJ.Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med2000; 19: 1707–1728.
7.
FeinsteinAR. Indexes of contrast and quantitative significance for comparisons of two groups. Stat Med1999; 18: 2557–2581.
8.
FleissJ.Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley and sons. 1981.
9.
FurukawaTA, GuyattGH, GriffithLE. Can we individualize the ‘number needed to treat’? An empirical study of summary effect measures in meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol2002; 31: 72–76.
10.
GlasziouP, GuyattGH, DansAL, DansLF, StrausS, SackettDL. Applying the results of trials and systematic reviews to individual patients. ACP J Club1998; 129: A15–A16.
11.
GreenlandS.Model-based estimation of relative risks and other epidemiologic measures in studies of common outcomes and in case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol2004; 160: 301–305.
12.
GreenlandS, RobinsJM. Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. Biometrics1985; 41: 55–68.
13.
GrimesDA, SchulzKF. Making sense of odds and odds ratios. Obstet Gynecol2008; 111: 423–426.
14.
HardyRJ, ThompsonSG. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med1998; 17: 841–856.
15.
HigginsJP, ThompsonSG, SpiegelhalterDJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc2009; 172: 137–159.
16.
HigginsJPT, GreenS.Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org
17.
HuskissonEC. Measurement of pain. Lancet1974; 2: 1127–1131.
18.
KnolMJ. Down with odds ratios: risk ratios in cohort studies and randomised clinical trials. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd2012; 156: A4775.
19.
LiberatiA, AltmanDG, TetzlaffJ, MulrowC, GøtzschePC, IoannidisJP, The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol2009; 62: e1–e34.
20.
LikertR.A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol1932; 140: 1–55.
21.
MantelN, HaenszelW.Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst1959; 22: 719–748.
22.
McNuttLA, WuC, XueX, HafnerJP. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol2003; 157: 940–943.
23.
NewcombeRG. A deficiency of the odds ratio as a measure of effect size. Stat Med2006; 25: 4235–4240.
24.
PapageorgiouSN. Meta-analysis 101. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2013; 144: 497.
25.
PapageorgiouSN, AntonoglouG, TsiranidouE, JepsenS, JägerA.Bias and small-study effects influence treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study in oral medicine. J Clin Epidemiol 2014a. Epub ahead of print: DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.002.
26.
PapageorgiouSN, PapadopoulosMA, AthanasiouAE. Reporting characteristics of meta-analyses in orthodontics: methodological assessment and statistical recommendations. Eur J Orthod2014b; 36: 74–85.
27.
Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5·2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
28.
SackettDL, DeeksJJ, AltmanD.Down with odds ratios!Evidence-Based Med1996; 1: 164–167.
29.
SacketDL, RichardsonWS, RosenbergW, HaynesRB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. New York: Churchill Livingstone. 1997.
30.
SchmidtFL, OhIS, HayesTL. Fixed- versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. Br J Math Stat Psychol2009; 62: 97–128.
31.
SinclairJC, BrackenMB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol1994; 47: 881–90.
32.
ThiruvenkatachariB, HarrisonJE, WorthingtonHV, O'BrienKD. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2013; 11: CD003452.
33.
WalterSD. Choice of effect measure for epidemiological data. J Clin Epidemiol2000; 53: 931–939.
34.
YusufS, PetoR, LewisJ, CollinsR, SleightP.Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomised trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis1985; 27: 335–371.
