Common statistical errors in systematic reviews: A tutorial

Afroditi Kanellopoulou, Kerry Dwan, Rachel Richardson
{"title":"Common statistical errors in systematic reviews: A tutorial","authors":"Afroditi Kanellopoulou,&nbsp;Kerry Dwan,&nbsp;Rachel Richardson","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The aim of this article is to present the most common statistical errors in meta-analyses included in systematic reviews; these are confusing standard deviation and standard error, using heterogeneity estimators for choosing between a common-effect and random-effects model, improper handling of multiarm trials, and unnecessary and misinterpreted subgroup analyses. We introduce some useful terminology and explain what authors can do to avoid these errors and how peer reviewers can spot them. We have also developed a micro-learning module to provide practical hands-on tutorial.</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70013","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.70013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this article is to present the most common statistical errors in meta-analyses included in systematic reviews; these are confusing standard deviation and standard error, using heterogeneity estimators for choosing between a common-effect and random-effects model, improper handling of multiarm trials, and unnecessary and misinterpreted subgroup analyses. We introduce some useful terminology and explain what authors can do to avoid these errors and how peer reviewers can spot them. We have also developed a micro-learning module to provide practical hands-on tutorial.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
系统回顾中的常见统计错误:教程
本文的目的是介绍系统综述中meta分析中最常见的统计错误;这些是令人困惑的标准偏差和标准误差,使用异质性估计器在共同效应和随机效应模型之间进行选择,多组试验处理不当,以及不必要和误解的亚组分析。我们介绍了一些有用的术语,并解释了作者可以做些什么来避免这些错误,以及同行审稿人如何发现这些错误。我们还开发了一个微型学习模块,提供实用的动手教程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Associations of Social and Demographic Factors on the Outcomes of Ocular Melanoma and Other Adult Ocular Neoplasms in the United States: A Systematic Review. Using Large Language Models to Address Contextual Questions in Systematic Reviews. Correction to “Health Equity in Systematic Reviews: A Tutorial—Part 1 Getting Started With Health Equity in Your Review”, “Health Equity in Systematic Reviews: A Tutorial—Part 2 Implementing Health Equity Throughout Your Methods”, “Meta-Analysis Using Time-to-Event Data: A Tutorial” and “Split Body Trials in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: A Tutorial” Sensitivity and Precision of Search Strategies Built Using a Text-Mining Word Frequency Tool (PubReMiner) Compared to Current Best Practice for Building Search Strategies: A Study Within a Review (SWAR) Ninety-Seven Percent of Trials Investigating Robotic Interventions in Physiotherapy Contained Abstract Spin: A Meta-Research Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1