Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 1

A Practical Guide to Do Primary Research on Meta Analysis Methodology

Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head,

Technical Operations, Pubrica

sales@pubrica.com

In-Brief

Conventional meta analysis research

techniques are extended to accommodate

methods and practices found in basic

research. Apart from clinical research,

where consolidation efforts are facilitated

by systematic review and meta analysis

research, basic science occasionally use

such rigorous quantitative

methods. Pubrica blog explains, meta-

analyses offer informed estimates for

biological consequences and the range of

their variability, which are essential for the

hypothesis generation and evidence-driven

design of translational studies, as well as

the development of computational models.

Keywords: meta analysis research,

statistical data analysis, systematic review

meta analysis, how to perform a meta

analysis, meta analysis writing service,

meta analysis services, meta analysis

services.

I. INTRODUCTION

Evidence-based practise aims to combine

the best evidence with clinical and patient

expertise. Systematic reviews and meta-

analyses are necessary tools for combining

evidence needed for clinical decision

making and policy. Systematic reviews help

combine available literature using specific

search parameters followed by logical

synthesis of multiple primary studies and

critical appraisal. Meta-analysis denotes the

statistical analysis of the data from other

independent fundamental studies that focus

on the same question. The objective is to

create an estimation about the studied

phenomenon, for example, the intervention's

effectiveness. In clinical research,

systematic reviews and meta-analyses act as

an essential part of evidence-based

medicine.

However, in fundamental science, efforts

taken to evaluate literature review in such a

quantitative and rigorous form are rare, and

narrative reviews are prevalent. The

manuscript aims to offer a brief

computational resource, theoretical

foundation and workflow outline for

accomplishing a systematic or rapid review

monitored by a meta-analysis of primary

research studies. Meta-analyses can be a

difficult undertaking, requiring tedious

screening and statistical understanding.

There are various guides found which

outline how to undertake a meta-analysis in

clinical research.

II. META-ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

1. Search and Selection Strategies

The first stage of any review contains

formulating a primary objective in the form

of a research question or hypothesis.

Reviewers must clearly define the review's

aim before starting preceding the project,

which helps decrease the risk of data

dredging, where commentators later assign

Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 2

meaning to essential findings. Precaution

must be taken since the search strategies are

formulated for the primary objectives to

define the secondary objective, which may

not completely encompass the body of the

work needed to address the secondary

objective. Based on the purpose of a review,

reviewers select a rapid or systematic

review. The meta-analytic methodology is

similar to systematic and rapid reviews; the

scope of literature assessed tends to be

significantly narrower for rapid reviews

allowing the project to progress faster.

2. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Systematic reviews include a comprehensive

search strategy that allows the reviewers to

recognize all related studies in a particular

topic. Systematic reviews have the potential

to produce information-rich databases which

permit extensive secondary analysis.

Examine the pool of existing information.

Search standards must be sensitive enough

not to miss relevant studies. Important terms

and concepts conveyed as index terms and

synonymous keywords, such as Medical

Subject Headings, must be collected using

Boolean operators AND, OR and NOT.

Wildcards, Truncation and proximity

operatives can help improve the search

strategy by providing different wording for

the same concept and spelling variation.

Searching approaches can be validated using

a selection of expected relevant studies. If

some strategy fails to retrieve one among the

selected studies, the research strategy needs

further optimization. Updating the search

strategy in every iterative step continues

until the search strategy performs at a

satisfactory level. A comprehensive

prediction to return a vast number of studies

is not relevant to the topic, usually resulting

in a specificity of <10%. Hence, the starting

stage, i.e. examining through the library to

choose related studies, is time-consuming

and is open to human error. Nevertheless,

systematic reviews can provide the highest-

quality quantitative evidence synthesis to

directly inform the experimental and

computational basic, preclinical and

translational studies.

3. Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis

The objective of the rapid review, as

mentioned in the name, it helps in reducing

the time needed to synthesize the data.

Rapid reviews are an appropriate alternative

to systematic approaches if reviewers prefer

to get a general idea of the field's state

without a prolonged time investment. Search

policies are constructed by increasing search

specificity, decreasing the number of

inappropriate studies discovered by

searching comprehensiveness cost. A rapid

review's strength is its flexibility to adapt to

the reviewer's needs, resulting in a lack of

standardized methodology.

Common shortcuts made in rapid reviews

are:

Narrow down the search criteria,

Striking date restrictions,

Conducting the review with a single

reviewer,

Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 2

Neglecting expert consultation (i.e.,

librarian for search strategy

development),

Constricting language criteria (ex.

English only),

Preceding the iterative process of

searching and search period

selection,

Neglecting quality checklist criteria

and

Limiting the number of databases

searched.

These shortcuts will restrict the initial pool

of studies returned from the search, thus

advancing the selection process, potentially

result in the segregation of relevant studies

and the introduction of selection bias. Rapid

reviews do not reflect detriment quality or

synthesize misrepresentative results.

While there is consent that rapid reviews do

not sacrifice quality or synthesize

misrepresentative results, it is suggested that

critical outcomes be later confirmed by

systematic review. Nevertheless, rapid

reviews are a feasible alternative when

parameters for computational modelling

need to be valued. While systematic and

rapid reviews rely on various strategies to

select the related studies, the statistical

methods used to produce data from the

systematic and rapid review are identical.

4. Screening and Selection

When the literature search is wide-ranging,

articles are taken out and stored in a place

manager for screening. Before research

screening, the addition and elimination

criteria must be defined to ensure constancy

in study identification and recovery,

especially when multiple reviewers are

involved. The serious steps in screening and

selection are

Eliminating duplicates

Screening for related studies by title

and abstract, and

Inspecting full texts to make sure

they fulfil the suitability criteria.

Some reference managers accessible,

including Mendeley and Rayyan, exactly

developed to help with screening systematic

reviews.

However, 98% of journalists report using

Endnote, Reference Manager or RefWorks

to prepare their reviews. Reference

managers often have duplication functions;

however, these can be tedious and error-

prone. A protocol for faster and more

reliable duplication in Endnote has been

recently proposed. The articles' selection

should be suitably broad, not subject to a

single lab or author. In primary research

articles, it is collective to find data sets

reused by the same group in multiple

studies. Therefore, additional securities

should be taken when determining to contain

multiple studies published by a single group.

Screening and selection procedure, the

reviewer acquires a complete list of good

full-text manuscripts. The full screening and

selection procedure should be stated in a

PRISMA diagram, which maps the data

flow throughout the review according to

arranged guidelines published elsewhere.

III. CONCLUSION

Meta-analytic methods permit reviewers to

quantitatively evaluate and synthesize

results across studies to obtain data on

statistical significance and relevance—

systematic reviews of fundamental research

data which have the potential of producing

information-rich databases which allow

extensive secondary analysis.

Our meta-analyses experts provide a meta-

analysis writing service that will ensure a

thorough review of your research question,

conduct a systematic review, data extraction,

and standardization and weighting studies

and finally select and apply an appropriate

Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 2

model to compare effect sizes across

different studies.

REFERENCES

1. Efthimiou, O. (2018). Practical guide to the meta-

analysis of rare events. Evidence-based mental health,

21(2), 72-76.

2. Paterson, B. L., Thorne, S. E., Canam, C., & Jillings,

C. (2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research: A

practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis

(Vol. 3). Sage.