Application of meta-analysis in reviewing occupational cohort studies.
Open accessAbstract
Meta-analysis has been used increasingly in reviewing and summarising epidemiological studies. Reviews incorporating meta-analyses have appeared in medical journals in increasing numbers. Although there are several methodology papers on meta-analysis, most of these papers have been written primarily for discussion among epidemiologists. The present paper considers some of the basic methodological issues, the more practical aspects of meta-analysis, and targets an audience of mainly non-epidemiologists. Thus, the main objective of this paper is to provide some basic guidelines for non-epidemiologists to evaluate meta-analysis in occupational cohort studies. In this methodology paper, the limitations and problems of traditional qualitative reviews are pointed out. Some of these problems can be dealt with by quantitative meta-analysis. The potential limitations and benefits of quantitative meta-analysis are discussed. Rather than replacing traditional qualitative review, quantitative meta-analysis should be made part of the overall assessment. The term "meta-review" is proposed to emphasise the importance of both qualitative and quantitative components in a comprehensive review process. The basic steps in a meta-review are outlined, with a discussion on how to recognise and avoid some of the problems which are likely to occur at each step. A meta-review is useful in selecting studies, and in organising, presenting, and summarising results from individual studies. A meta-review can also be used to detect heterogeneity among studies. Major benefits of conducting a meta-analysis (the quantitative component in a meta-review) include the increase in statistical power and the estimate of a properly weighted summary risk estimate.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Authors agreed that combining different study designs in a meta-analysis can lead to misleading results if done without careful consideration.
“Authors agreed that combining different study designs in a meta-analysis can lead to misleading results if done without careful consideration [35, 38, 56, 70, 75, 76].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [70]
Only five articles referred to the combination of different non-randomised studies.
“Only five articles referred to the combination of different non-randomised studies [38, 70, 75, 79, 80].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [70]
The use of a random-effects model for meta-analysis of observational studies by default was frequently recommended.
“Second, the use of a random-effects model for meta-analysis of observational studies by default was frequently recommended [8, 16, 29, 34, 70, 77, 100, 101].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [70]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Statistical Methods for Research Workers
Fisher, R. A. (1945) · American Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1093/ajcp/15.11.552b · Cited by 10,883 · see citing works
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380 · see citing works
Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890 · see citing works
Meta-analysis in social research
(1982) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/0149-7189(82)90011-8 · Cited by 3,896 · see citing works
QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN THE REVIEW OF EPIDEMIOLOGIC LITERATURE1
GREENLAND, S. (1987) · Epidemiologic Reviews · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036298 · Cited by 1,644 · see citing works
Statistical Methods in Medical Research.
Wickham, C. A. C., Armitage, P., & Berry, G. (1988) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.2307/2982765 · Cited by 1,410 · see citing works
Statistical Methods for Research Workers.
Grove, C. C., & Fisher, R. A. (1930) · American Mathematical Monthly · doi:10.2307/2299007 · Cited by 1,359 · see citing works
Statistical Methods for Research Workers
(1933) · Nature · doi:10.1038/131383b0 · Cited by 1,093 · see citing works
Fletcher, C. M. (1972) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(72)92890-5 · Cited by 871 · see citing works
Components of a Difference Between Two Rates
Kitagawa, E. M. (1955) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1955.10501299 · Cited by 857 · see citing works
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Chan, W. (2013) · Model Assisted Statistics and Applications · doi:10.3233/mas-130255 · Cited by 646 · see citing works
202. Note: Significance Factors for the Ratio of a Poisson Variable to Its Expectation
Bailar, J. C., & Ederer, F. (1964) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2528501 · Cited by 600 · see citing works
Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods
Greenland, S. (1994) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117248 · Cited by 511 · see citing works
Meta-analysis: State-of-the-Science
Dickersin, K., & Berlin, J. A. (1992) · Epidemiologic Reviews · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036084 · Cited by 502 · see citing works
Problems Arising in the Analysis of a Series of Similar Experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1937) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · doi:10.2307/2984123 · Cited by 461 · see citing works
Peto, R. (1987) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780060306 · Cited by 409 · see citing works
Soter, N. A., Wasserman, S. I., & Austen, K. F. (1976) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197603252941302 · Cited by 394 · see citing works
Should Unpublished Data Be Included in Meta-analyses?: Current Convictions and Controversies
Cook, D. J. (1993) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03500210049030 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Pathologic Physiology: Mechanisms of Disease
Weiss, D. L. (1974) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1974.03240030085043 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Wong, O., & Raabe, G. K. (1989) · American Journal of Industrial Medicine · doi:10.1002/ajim.4700150305 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Self-citationStandardized comparisons in population research
Kitagawa, E. M. (1964) · Demography · doi:10.1007/bf03208469 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Pearson, E. S. (1938) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/30.1-2.134 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Inter‐study differences: How should they influence the interpretation and analysis of results?
Bailey, K. R. (1987) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780060327 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Wong, O., & Raabe, G. K. (1995) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1006/rtph.1995.1044 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Self-citationOn Some Points Relating to Vital Statistics, More Especially Statistics of Occupational Mortality
Yule, G. (1934) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.1111/j.2397-2335.1934.tb04110.x · Cited by 78 · see citing works
On Some Points Relating to Vital Statistics, More Especially Statistics of Occupational Mortality
Yule, G. U. (1934) · Journal Of The Royal Statistical Society · doi:10.2307/2342014 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
A review of epidemiological studies on artificial sweeteners and bladder cancer
Morgan, R. W., & Wong, O. (1985) · Food and Chemical Toxicology · doi:10.1016/0278-6915(85)90147-4 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Self-citationAsbestos and gastrointestinal cancer. A review of the literature.
Morgan, R. W., Foliart, D. E., & Wong, O. (1985) · PubMed · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Self-citationEm, K. (1966) · PubMed · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Pearson, E. S. (1938) · Biometrika · doi:10.2307/2332229 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Meier, P. (1987) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780060322 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 29 Elveback LR. Discussion of "Indices of mortality and tests of their statistical significance."Hum Biol 1966;38:322-4.
- 1 International Steering Committee of Medical Editors, Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. BMf 1979;1:532-5. 1 International Steering Committee of Medical Editors, Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. BMg 1979;1:532–5.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mueller, M., D’Addario, M., Egger, M., Cevallos, M., Dekkers, O., Mugglin, C., & Scott, P. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0495-9 · Cited by 400 · see citing works
Althuis, M. D., Weed, D. L., & Frankenfeld, C. L. (2014) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-80 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wong, O., & Raabe, G. K.
- Venue
- Occupational and Environmental Medicine
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 793-800
- ISSN
- 0007-1072 (ISSN-L)
- 1351-0711
- 1470-7926
- PMC
- PMC1128611
- OpenAlex
- W2011903832
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 6.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Occupational and Environmental Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
- Keywords
- meta-analysis, meta-review, occupational cohort studies, study heterogeneity, statistical power, study selection
- MeSH terms
- Brain Neoplasms, Humans, Occupational Diseases, Petroleum, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Cohort Studies, Occupational Exposure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
