Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 66, No. 4, 2004
Issue release date: July–August 2004
ORL 2004;66:186–195


Rosenfeld R.M.
SUNY Health Science Center at Brooklyn, and Long Island College Hospital, Brooklyn, N.Y., USA

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in


Systematic reviews use explicit and reproducible criteria to assemble, appraise, and combine articles with a minimum of bias. Meta-analysis is a form of systematic review that uses statistical techniques to derive quantitative estimates of the magnitude of treatment effects and their associated precision. Valid meta-analyses address focused questions, use appropriate criteria to select articles, assess the quality and combinability of articles, provide graphic and numeric summaries, consider potential biases, and can be generalized to a meaningful target population. The rate difference, or absolute risk reduction, is the preferred measure of clinical effect size; the reciprocal tells the number needed to treat for one additional favorable outcome. The benefits of meta-analysis over individual trials include greater precision, increased statistical power, and the ability to identify and explore diversity among studies. Threats to validity include heterogeneity, citation bias, publication bias, language bias, and variations in study quality. Because meta-analysis defines rational treatment expectations at a population level, it is an adjunct to, not a substitute for, clinical judgment in the care of individual patients.

Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.


  1. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF: Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999;354:1896–900.
  2. Light RJ, Pillemer DB: Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1984, pp 3–6.
  3. Egger M, Smith GD: Meta-analysis: Potentials and promise. BMJ 1997;315:1371–1374.
  4. Götzsche PC: Reference bias in reports of drug trials. BMJ 1987;295:654–656.
  5. Barnes DE, Bero LA: Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 1998;279:1566–1570.
  6. Rochon PA, Bero LA, Bay AM, Gold JL, Dergal JM, Binns MA, Streiner DL, Gurwitz JH: Comparison of review articles published in peer-reviewed and throwaway journals. JAMA 2002;287:2853–2856.
  7. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO: Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Postdam consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:167–171.
  8. Klassen TP, Jadad AR, Moher D: Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews. 1. Getting started. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998;152:700–704.
  9. Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H: A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof 2002;25:12–37.
  10. Rosenfeld RM: How to systematically review the medical literature. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;115:53–63.
  11. Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Sheldon TA, Song F: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: A structured review of the methodological literature. J Health Serv Res Policy 1999;4:49–55.
  12. Jadad AR, Haynes RB: The Cochrane Collaboration – Advances and challenges in improving evidence-based decision making. Med Decis Making 1998;18:2–9.
  13. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Alison J, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, Moher D: Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998;280:278–280.
  14. Egger M, Schneider M, Smith GD: Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ 1998;316:410–414.
  15. Blettner M, Sauerbrei W, Schlehofer B, Scheuchenpflug T, Friedenreich C: Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 1999;28:1–9.
  16. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB: Meta-analysis of observational studies. A proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283:2008–2012.
  17. Lee W, Bausell RB, Berman BM: The growth of health-related meta-analyses published from 1980 to 2000. Eval Health Prof 2001;24:327–335.
  18. Feinstein AR: Meta-analysis: Statistical alchemy for the 21st century. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:71–79.
  19. Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, et al: A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 1981;2:31–49.
  20. 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.
  21. Jones DR: Meta-analysis: Weighing the evidence. Stat Med 1995;14:137–149.
  22. Borenstein M, Rothstein H: Comprehensive Meta-Analysis: A Computer Program for Research Synthesis (Version 1.0.25). Englewood, Biostat Inc, 2000.
  23. Sackett DL: Applying overviews and meta-analyses at the bedside. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:61–66.
  24. Chatellier G, Zapletal E, Lemaitre D, Menard J, Degoulet R: The number needed to treat: A clinically useful nomogram in its proper context. BMJ 1996;321:426–429.
  25. Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB: Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1997.
  26. DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177–188.
  27. Borenstein M: The case for confidence intervals in controlled clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1994;15:411–418.
  28. Marcy M, Takata G, Shekelle P, et al: Management of Acute Otitis Media. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No 15 (Prepared by the Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center under Contract No 290-97-0001). AHRQ Publication No 01-E010. Rockville, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2001.
  29. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR: An illustrated guide to the methods of meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract 2001;7:135–148.
  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. Stool SE, Berg AO, Berman S, Carney CJ, Cooley JR, Culpepper L, Eavey RD, Feagans, LV, Finitzo T, Friedman EM, Goertz JA, Goldstein AJ, Grundfast KM, Long DG, Macconi LL, Melton L, Roberts JE, Sherrod JL, Sisk JE: Otitis Media with Effusion in Young Children. Clinical Practice Guideline, Number 12. AHCPR Publication No 94-0622. Rockville, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services, 1994.
  32. Ferrer RL: Graphical methods for detecting bias in meta-analysis. Fam Med 1998;30:579–583.
  33. Ioannidis JPA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Chew P, Lau J: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the comparative efficacy and safety of azithromycin against other antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2001;48:677–689.
  34. Acuin J, Smith A, Mackenzie I: Interventions for chronic suppurative otitis media (Cochrane Review); in: Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2002. Oxford, Update Software.
  35. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, Dickersin K, Flanagin A, Hogan JW, Zhu Q, Reiling J, Pace B: Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 2002;287:2825–2828.
  36. Rosenthal R: The ‘file drawer problem’ and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 1979;86:638–641.

    External Resources

  37. Sterne JAC, Gavaghan D, Egger M: Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: Power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:1119–29.
  38. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G: Language bias in randomized controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997;350:326–329.
  39. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R: Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials 1998;19:159–166.
  40. Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, Schultz KF, Berlin JA, Jadad AR, Liberati A: What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:964–972.
  41. Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M: Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: Empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:115–23.
  42. Ioannidis JPA, Lau J: Pooling research results: Benefits and limitations of meta-analysis. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1999;25:462–469.
  43. Freemantle N, Mason J, Eccles M: Deriving treatment recommendations from evidence within randomized trials. The role and limitation of meta-analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999;15:304–315.
  44. Lau J, Ionnadis JPA, Schmid CH: Summing up evidence: One answer is not always enough. Lancet 1998;351:123–127.
  45. Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D: Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: A critical appraisal of guidelines and practice. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002;7:51–61.
  46. Ioannidis JPA, Cappelleri JC, Lau J: Issues in comparisons between meta-analyses and large trials. JAMA 1998;279:1089–1093.
  47. Pogue J, Yusuf S: Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 1998;351:47–52.
  48. Ezzo J, Bausell B, Moerman DE, Berman B, Hadhazy V: Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001;17:457–466.
  49. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP: A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. Can Med Assoc J 1997;156:1411–1416.

Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50