A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies
A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2288-7-40
复制
发表时间：
2007-09-10
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Moons, Karel G. M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bax, Leon;Yu, Ly-Mee;Moons, Karel G. M.
背景资料：我们的目标是系统地评估目前可用的荟萃分析programmes.Methods的功能，结果和可用性的差异：软件的系统评价。我们在互联网上（谷歌、雅虎、阿尔塔维斯塔和MSN）广泛搜索专门的荟萃分析软件。我们的综述包括六个程序：综合荟萃分析（CMA），MetAnalysis，MetaWin，MIX，RevMan和WEasyMA。两名研究人员比较了软件的功能和他们的结果。三十名独立的研究人员在分析一个数据集的同时评估了这些程序的可用性。结果：这些程序在功能、易用性和价格上有很大的不同。虽然这些程序的大多数结果是相同的，但我们确实发现了一些微小的数值不一致。CMA和MIX得分最高的可用性和这些程序也有最完整的一套分析features.Conclusion：在考虑到数值结果的差异，我们相信用户社区将受益于公开和系统更新的信息有关的程序和结果，每个程序的验证。最适合进行荟萃分析的程序将取决于用户的需求和偏好，本报告提供了一个概述，有助于做出有根据的选择。
Background: Our objective was to systematically assess the differences in features, results, and usability of currently available meta-analysis programs.Methods: Systematic review of software. We did an extensive search on the internet (Google, Yahoo, Altavista, and MSN) for specialized meta-analysis software. We included six programs in our review: Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA), MetAnalysis, MetaWin, MIX, RevMan, and WEasyMA. Two investigators compared the features of the software and their results. Thirty independent researchers evaluated the programs on their usability while analyzing one data set.Results: The programs differed substantially in features, ease-of-use, and price. Although most results from the programs were identical, we did find some minor numerical inconsistencies. CMA and MIX scored highest on usability and these programs also have the most complete set of analytical features.Conclusion: In consideration of differences in numerical results, we believe the user community would benefit from openly available and systematically updated information about the procedures and results of each program's validation. The most suitable program for a meta-analysis will depend on the user's needs and preferences and this report provides an overview that should be helpful in making a substantiated choice.