Meta-analysis - Bias in location and selection of studies
Meta-analysis - Bias in location and selection of studies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61
复制
发表时间：
1998-01-03
影响因子：
105.7
通讯作者：
Smith, GD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Egger, M;Smith, GD
元分析从一开始就受到了褒贬不一的评价。一些人拒绝了他们认为是“超级愚蠢”的练习，而一系列非常杰出的围产期医疗护理荟萃分析的提供者被斥为“产科巴德尔-迈因霍夫团伙”。[3]对于一些反对荟萃分析结果的临床医生来说，“工具已经变成了武器”。[4]在另一端，基本上由计算加权平均值组成的技术的应用被誉为“牛顿”，[5]并且有人认为荟萃分析没有给叙述性综述文章留下任何位置。[6]真相很可能介于这些极端观点之间。
Meta-analysis has received a mixed reception since the outset. Some people have rejected what they see as exercises in “mega-silliness,” 1 while the purveyors of a highly distinguished series of meta-analyses of perinatal medical care 2 have been dismissed as “an obstetrical Baader-Meinhof gang.” 3 To some clinicians objecting to the findings of meta-analyses,“a tool has become a weapon.” 4 At the other end of the spectrum, the application of a technique that basically consists of calculating a weighted average has been hailed as “Newtonian,” 5 and it has been suggested that meta-analysis has left no place for the narrative review article. 6 The truth is likely to lie somewhere between these extreme views.