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, vol.15, no.9, pp.701-708, 2015 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 15 Issue: 9
  • Publication Date: 2015
  • Doi Number: 10.5152/akd.2014.5665
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Page Numbers: pp.701-708
  • Istanbul University Affiliated: Yes


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.