首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Anatolian Journal of Cardiology >The most critical question when reading a meta-analysis report: Is it comparing apples with apples or apples with oranges?
【2h】

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

机译:阅读荟萃分析报告时最关键的问题是:是将苹果与苹果进行比较还是将苹果与橙子进行比较?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:目的:尽管最近发表的荟萃分析数量有所增加,但大多数在设计,分析和/或表示方面存在问题。带有研究选择偏倚的荟萃分析的一个例子是对20个临床试验中超过160,000例患者的荟萃分析,由van Vark于2012年发表在Eur Heart J上,得出结论,肾素-血管紧张素-醛固酮系统的显著作用( RAAS对全因死亡率的抑制作用仅限于血管紧张素转化酶抑制剂(ACEIs)类,而血管紧张素受体阻滞剂(ARBs)不能证明死亡率降低。在这里,我们旨在讨论如何选择用于荟萃分析的研究,并展示我们对van Vark数据进行重新分析的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号