The most critical question when reading a meta-analysis report: Is it comparing apples with apples or apples with oranges?

Kizilirmak P., OZDEMIR O., Ongen Z.

ANATOLIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, cilt.15, sa.9, ss.701-708, 2015 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 15 Sayı: 9
  • Basım Tarihi: 2015
  • Doi Numarası: 10.5152/akd.2014.5665
  • Dergi Adı: ANATOLIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.701-708
  • İstanbul Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objective: While the number of meta-analyses published has increased recently, most of them have problems in the design, analysis, and/or presentation. An example of meta-analyses with a study selection bias is a meta-analysis of over 160,000 patients in 20 clinical trials, published in Eur Heart J in 2012 by van Vark, which concluded that the significant effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition on all-cause mortality was limited to the class of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), whereas no mortality reduction could be demonstrated with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Here, we aimed to discuss how to select studies for a meta-analysis and to present our results of a re-analysis of the van Vark data.