- Research Process
- Manuscript Preparation
- Manuscript Review
- Publication Process
- Publication Recognition
- Language Editing Services
- Translation Services
Systematic Review VS Meta-Analysis
- 3 minute read
- 76.5K views
Table of Contents
How you organize your research is incredibly important; whether you’re preparing a report, research review, thesis or an article to be published. What methodology you choose can make or break your work getting out into the world, so let’s take a look at two main types: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Let’s start with what they have in common – essentially, they are both based on high-quality filtered evidence related to a specific research topic. They’re both highly regarded as generally resulting in reliable findings, though there are differences, which we’ll discuss below. Additionally, they both support conclusions based on expert reviews, case-controlled studies, data analysis, etc., versus mere opinions and musings.
What is a Systematic Review?
A systematic review is a form of research done collecting, appraising and synthesizing evidence to answer a particular question, in a very transparent and systematic way. Data (or evidence) used in systematic reviews have their origin in scholarly literature – published or unpublished. So, findings are typically very reliable. In addition, they are normally collated and appraised by an independent panel of experts in the field. Unlike traditional reviews, systematic reviews are very comprehensive and don’t rely on a single author’s point of view, thus avoiding bias.
Systematic reviews are especially important in the medical field, where health practitioners need to be constantly up-to-date with new, high-quality information to lead their daily decisions. Since systematic reviews, by definition, collect information from previous research, the pitfalls of new primary studies is avoided. They often, in fact, identify lack of evidence or knowledge limitations, and consequently recommend further study, if needed.
Why are systematic reviews important?
- They combine and synthesize various studies and their findings.
- Systematic reviews appraise the validity of the results and findings of the collected studies in an impartial way.
- They define clear objectives and reproducible methodologies.
What is a Meta-analysis?
This form of research relies on combining statistical results from two or more existing studies. When multiple studies are addressing the same problem or question, it’s to be expected that there will be some potential for error. Most studies account for this within their results. A meta-analysis can help iron out any inconsistencies in data, as long as the studies are similar.
For instance, if your research is about the influence of the Mediterranean diet on diabetic people, between the ages of 30 and 45, but you only find a study about the Mediterranean diet in healthy people and another about the Mediterranean diet in diabetic teenagers. In this case, undertaking a meta-analysis would probably be a poor choice. You can either pursue the idea of comparing such different material, at the risk of findings that don’t really answer the review question. Or, you can decide to explore a different research method (perhaps more qualitative).
Why is meta-analysis important?
- They help improve precision about evidence since many studies are too small to provide convincing data.
- Meta-analyses can settle divergences between conflicting studies. By formally assessing the conflicting study results, it is possible to eventually reach new hypotheses and explore the reasons for controversy.
- They can also answer questions with a broader influence than individual studies. For example, the effect of a disease on several populations across the world, by comparing other modest research studies completed in specific countries or continents.
Undertaking research approaches, like systematic reviews and/or meta-analysis, involve great responsibility. They provide reliable information that has a real impact on society. Elsevier offers a number of services that aim to help researchers achieve excellence in written text, suggesting the necessary amendments to fit them into a targeted format. A perfectly written text, whether translated or edited from a manuscript, is the key to being respected within the scientific community, leading to more and more important positions like, let’s say…being part of an expert panel leading a systematic review or a widely acknowledged meta-analysis.
Check why it’s important to manage research data .
Language Editing Services by Elsevier Author Services:
What is a Good H-index?
What is a Research Gap
You may also like.
Essential for High-Quality Paper Editing: Three Tips to Efficient Spellchecks
If You’re a Researcher, Remember These Before You Are Submitting Your Manuscript to Journals!
Navigating “Chinglish” Errors in Academic English Writing
Is The Use of AI in Manuscript Editing Feasible? Here’s Three Tips to Steer Clear of Potential Issues
A profound editing experience with English-speaking experts: Elsevier Language Services to learn more!
Research Fraud: Falsification and Fabrication in Research Data
Professor Anselmo Paiva: Using Computer Vision to Tackle Medical Issues with a Little Help from Elsevier Author Services
What is the main purpose of proofreading a paper?
Input your search keywords and press Enter.
Covidence website will be inaccessible as we upgrading our platform on Monday 23rd August at 10am AEST, / 2am CEST/1am BST (Sunday, 15th August 8pm EDT/5pm PDT)
The difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis
- Best Practice
Home | Blog | Best Practice | The difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis
Covidence explains the difference between systematic review & meta-analysis.
Systematic review and meta-analysis are two terms that you might see used interchangeably. Each term refers to research about research, but there are important differences!
A systematic review is a piece of work that asks a research question and then answers it by summarising the evidence that meets a set of pre-specified criteria. Some systematic reviews present their results using meta-analysis, a statistical method that combines the results of several trials to generate an average result. Meta-analysis adds value because it can produce a more precise estimate of the effect of a treatment than considering each study individually 🎯.
Let’s take a look at a few related questions that you might have about systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
🙋🏽♂️ What are the stages of a systematic review?
A systematic review starts with a research question and a protocol or research plan. A review team searches for studies to answer the question using a highly sensitive search strategy. The retrieved studies are then screened for eligibility using the inclusion and exclusion criteria (this is done by at least two people working independently). Next, the reviewers extract the relevant data and assess the quality of the included studies. Finally, the review team synthesises the extracted study data (perhaps using meta-analysis) and presents the results. The process is shown in figure 1.
Covidence helps researchers complete systematic review quickly and easily! It supports reviewers with study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Data exported from Covidence can be saved in Excel for reliable transfer to your choice of data analysis software or, if you’re writing a Cochrane Review, to RevMan 5.
🙋🏻♀️ What does 'systematic' actually mean?
In this context, systematic means that the methods used to search for and analyse the data are
transparent, reproducible and defined before searching begins. This is what differentiates a systematic review from a descriptive review that might be based on, for example, a subset of the literature that the author is familiar with at the time of writing. Systematic reviews strive to be as thorough and rigorous as possible to minimise the bias that would result from cherry-picking studies in a non-systematic way. Systematic reviews sit at the top of the evidence hierarchy because it is widely agreed that studies with rigorous methods are those best able to minimise the risk of bias on the results of the study. This is what makes systematic reviews the most reliable form of evidence (see figure 2).
🙋🏾♂️ Why don't all systematic reviews use meta-analysis?
Meta-analysis can improve the precision of an effect estimate. But it can also be misleading if it is performed with data that are not sufficiently similar, or with data whose methodological quality is poor (for example, because the study participants were not properly randomized). So it’s not always appropriate to use meta-analysis and many systematic reviews do not include them. Reviews that do not contain meta-analysis can still synthesise study data to produce something that has greater value than the sum of its parts.
🙋🏾♀️ What does meta-analysis do?
Meta-analysis produces a more precise estimate of treatment effect. There are several types of effect size and the most suitable type is chosen by the review team based on the type of outcomes and interventions under investigation. Typical effect sizes in systematic reviews are the odds ratio, the risk ratio, the weighted mean difference and the standardized mean difference. The results of a meta-analysis are displayed using a forest plot like the one in figure 3.
Some meta-analyses also include subgroup analysis or meta-regression. These techniques are used to explore a factor (for example, the age of the study participant) that might influence the relationship between the treatment and the intervention. Plans to analyse the data using these techniques should be described and justified before looking at the data, ideally at the research plan or protocol stage, to avoid introducing bias. Like meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and meta-regression are advisable only in certain circumstances.
Systematic reviewer pro-tip
Think carefully before you plan subgroup analysis or meta-regression and always ask a methodologist for advice
🙋🏼♀️ What are the other ways to synthesise evidence?
Systematic reviews combine study data in a number of ways to reach an overall understanding of the evidence. Meta-analysis is a type of statistical synthesis. Narrative synthesis combines the findings of multiple studies using words. All systematic reviews, including those that use meta-analysis, are likely to contain an element of narrative synthesis by summarising in words the evidence included in the review. But narrative synthesis doesn’t just describe the included studies: it also seeks to explain the gathered evidence, for example by looking at similarities and differences between the study findings and by exploring possible reasons for those similarities and differences in a systematic way. Narrative synthesis should not be confused with narrative review, which is a term sometimes used for a non-systematic review of the literature (for example in a textbook chapter) where there is no systematic attempt to address issues of bias.
There are many types of systematic review . What they all have in common is the use of transparent and reproducible methods that are defined before the search begins. There is no ‘best’ way to synthesise systematic review evidence, and the most suitable approach will depend on factors such as the nature of the review question, the type of intervention and the outcomes of interest.
Covidence is a web-based tool that saves you time at the screening, selection, data extraction and quality assessment stages of your review. It provides easy collaboration across teams and a clear overview of task status, helping you to efficiently complete your review. Sign up for a free trial today! 😀
1 Effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing parental substance misuse – McGovern, R – 2021 | Cochrane Library https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012823.pub2/full . Accessed 25 March 2021
Laura Mellor. Portsmouth, UK
Perhaps you'd also like....
Webinars from start to finish: Creating a Review
Creating a systematic review can be a complex process, but with the right resources, you can navigate it smoothly from start to finish. In the
Data Extraction Tip 5: Communicate Regularly
The Covidence Global Scholarship recipients are putting evidence-based research into practice. We caught up with some of the winners to discover the impact of their work and find out more about their experiences.
Data Extraction Tip 4: Extract the Right Amount of Data
Better systematic review management, head office, working for an institution or organisation.
Find out why over 350 of the world’s leading institutions are seeing a surge in publications since using Covidence!
Request a consultation with one of our team members and start empowering your researchers:
By using our site you consent to our use of cookies to measure and improve our site’s performance. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information.
IMAGES
VIDEO