A 7-Step Guideline for Qualitative Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Health Sciences.

IF 3.5 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Marija Glisic, Peter Francis Raguindin, Armin Gemperli, Petek Eylul Taneri, Dante Jr Salvador, Trudy Voortman, Pedro Marques Vidal, Stefania I Papatheodorou, Setor K Kunutsor, Arjola Bano, John P A Ioannidis, Taulant Muka
{"title":"A 7-Step Guideline for Qualitative Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Health Sciences.","authors":"Marija Glisic,&nbsp;Peter Francis Raguindin,&nbsp;Armin Gemperli,&nbsp;Petek Eylul Taneri,&nbsp;Dante Jr Salvador,&nbsp;Trudy Voortman,&nbsp;Pedro Marques Vidal,&nbsp;Stefania I Papatheodorou,&nbsp;Setor K Kunutsor,&nbsp;Arjola Bano,&nbsp;John P A Ioannidis,&nbsp;Taulant Muka","doi":"10.3389/phrs.2023.1605454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> To provide a step-by-step, easy-to-understand, practical guide for systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. <b>Methods:</b> A multidisciplinary team of researchers with extensive experience in observational studies and systematic review and meta-analysis was established. Previous guidelines in evidence synthesis were considered. <b>Results:</b> There is inherent variability in observational study design, population, and analysis, making evidence synthesis challenging. We provided a framework and discussed basic meta-analysis concepts to assist reviewers in making informed decisions. We also explained several statistical tools for dealing with heterogeneity, probing for bias, and interpreting findings. Finally, we briefly discussed issues and caveats for translating results into clinical and public health recommendations. Our guideline complements \"A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research\" and addresses peculiarities for observational studies previously unexplored. <b>Conclusion:</b> We provided 7 steps to synthesize evidence from observational studies. We encourage medical and public health practitioners who answer important questions to systematically integrate evidence from observational studies and contribute evidence-based decision-making in health sciences.</p>","PeriodicalId":35944,"journal":{"name":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10227668/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2023.1605454","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objectives: To provide a step-by-step, easy-to-understand, practical guide for systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of researchers with extensive experience in observational studies and systematic review and meta-analysis was established. Previous guidelines in evidence synthesis were considered. Results: There is inherent variability in observational study design, population, and analysis, making evidence synthesis challenging. We provided a framework and discussed basic meta-analysis concepts to assist reviewers in making informed decisions. We also explained several statistical tools for dealing with heterogeneity, probing for bias, and interpreting findings. Finally, we briefly discussed issues and caveats for translating results into clinical and public health recommendations. Our guideline complements "A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research" and addresses peculiarities for observational studies previously unexplored. Conclusion: We provided 7 steps to synthesize evidence from observational studies. We encourage medical and public health practitioners who answer important questions to systematically integrate evidence from observational studies and contribute evidence-based decision-making in health sciences.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

健康科学观察性研究定性综合和荟萃分析的7步指南。
目的:为观察性研究的系统评价和荟萃分析提供一个循序渐进、易于理解、实用的指南。方法:建立了一个多学科的研究团队,他们在观察性研究、系统评价和荟萃分析方面具有丰富的经验。参考了以前的证据合成指南。结果:观察性研究设计、人群和分析存在固有的可变性,这使得证据合成具有挑战性。我们提供了一个框架,并讨论了基本的元分析概念,以帮助审稿人做出明智的决定。我们还解释了几种用于处理异质性、探究偏倚和解释研究结果的统计工具。最后,我们简要讨论了将结果转化为临床和公共卫生建议的问题和注意事项。我们的指南补充了“关于如何设计、实施和成功发表医学研究系统评价和荟萃分析的24步指南”,并解决了以前未探索过的观察性研究的特点。结论:我们提供了7个步骤来综合观察性研究的证据。我们鼓励回答重要问题的医疗和公共卫生从业人员系统地整合观察性研究的证据,并为健康科学中的循证决策做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS
PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS Nursing-Community and Home Care
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
1.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信