TY - JOUR
T1 - A guide to prospective meta-analysis
AU - Seidler, Anna Lene
AU - Hunter, Kylie E.
AU - Cheyne, Saskia
AU - Ghersi, Davina
AU - Berlin, Jesse A.
AU - Askie, Lisa
N1 - Funding Information:
National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. National Health and Medical Research Council, 2009. Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q 2016;94:485-514. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12210 Chan AW, Krleza-Jerić K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 2004;171:735-40. doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041086 Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1986;4:1529-41. doi:10.1200/ JCO.1986.4.10.1529 Berlin JA, Ghersi D. Preventing Publication Bias: Registries and Prospective Meta-Analysis. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 2006:35-48.
Publisher Copyright:
© Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to.
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - In a prospective meta-analysis (PMA), study selection criteria, hypotheses, and analyses are specified before the results of the studies related to the PMA research question are known, reducing many of the problems associated with a traditional (retrospective) meta-analysis. PMAs have many advantages: they can help reduce research waste and bias, and they are adaptive, efficient, and collaborative. Despite an increase in the number of health research articles labelled as PMAs, the methodology remains rare, novel, and often misunderstood. This paper provides detailed guidance on how to address the key elements for conducting a high quality PMA with a case study to illustrate each step.
AB - In a prospective meta-analysis (PMA), study selection criteria, hypotheses, and analyses are specified before the results of the studies related to the PMA research question are known, reducing many of the problems associated with a traditional (retrospective) meta-analysis. PMAs have many advantages: they can help reduce research waste and bias, and they are adaptive, efficient, and collaborative. Despite an increase in the number of health research articles labelled as PMAs, the methodology remains rare, novel, and often misunderstood. This paper provides detailed guidance on how to address the key elements for conducting a high quality PMA with a case study to illustrate each step.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073106300&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmj.l5342
DO - 10.1136/bmj.l5342
M3 - Article
C2 - 31597627
AN - SCOPUS:85073106300
SN - 0959-535X
VL - 367
JO - BMJ
JF - BMJ
IS - l5342
M1 - l5342
ER -