Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
Type: Journal article
Title: Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness
Author: Tufanaru, C.
Munn, Z.
Stephenson, M.
Aromataris, E.
Citation: International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 2015; 13(3):196-207
Publisher: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins
Issue Date: 2015
ISSN: 1744-1609
Statement of
Catalin Tufanaru, Zachary Munn, Matthew Stephenson and Edoardo Aromataris
Abstract: Systematic review aims to systematically identify, critically appraise, and summarize all relevant studies that match predefined criteria and answer predefined questions. The most common type of systematic review is that assessing the effectiveness of an intervention or therapy. In this article, we discuss some of the common methodological issues that arise when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of effectiveness data, including issues related to study designs, meta-analysis, and the use and interpretation of effect sizes.
Keywords: effect size; effectiveness; fixed effects; meta-analysis; random effects; systematic review
Rights: © 2015 University of Adelaide, Joanna Briggs Institute
DOI: 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000065
Published version:
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 7
Public Health publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.