Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness|
|Citation:||International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 2015; 13(3):196-207|
|Publisher:||Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins|
|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|
|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.