Meta-analysis as Evidence: Building a Better Pyramid
Berlin and Golub talk about seeking out the best evidence that addresses prevention or treatment question. One dogma argues that it is the best-conducted randomized clinical trial (RCT) comprising patients similar to those seen by the clinician, reasoning that a well-done RCT mimics pure experimenta...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 2014-08, Vol.312 (6), p.603-605 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 605 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 603 |
| container_title | JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association |
| container_volume | 312 |
| creator | Berlin, Jesse A Golub, Robert M |
| description | Berlin and Golub talk about seeking out the best evidence that addresses prevention or treatment question. One dogma argues that it is the best-conducted randomized clinical trial (RCT) comprising patients similar to those seen by the clinician, reasoning that a well-done RCT mimics pure experimental conditions better than any other study design, hence minimizing the likelihood of confounding. A counter-argument is that the best evidence is a systematic review with meta-analysis, because this approach can integrate all of the relevant evidence and provide a more reliable answer than a single study, however well conducted. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1001/jama.2014.8167 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1553316797</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ama_id>1895230</ama_id><sourcerecordid>3410830121</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a297t-c4a2d5887e0537540b6fc46e0da05daf35bfc6e616d9bec6b205af657f0c15f43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkDtPwzAUhS0EoqWwMjCgSCwsCXb8DButykMqggFmy_EDpcoD7ASp_x6Hlg7c5S7fOdL5ADhHMEMQopu1alSWQ0QygRg_AFNEsUgxLcQhmEJYiJQTQSbgJIQ1jIcwPwaTnCLEUS6mgDzbXqWqVfUmVCFRIVl-V8a22t4m86GqTdV-JCqZ2763PnndeNVU5hQcOVUHe7b7M_B-v3xbPKarl4enxd0qVXnB-1QTlRsqBLeQYk4JLJnThFloFKRGOUxLp5lliJmitJqVOaTKMcod1Ig6gmfgetv76buvwYZeNlXQtq5Va7shSEQpxnF2wSN69Q9dd4OPs36p6ERELFLZltK-C8FbJz991Si_kQjK0accfcrRpxx9xsDlrnYoG2v2-J_ACFxsgTG3LxMFzTHEP6DTdz4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1555388679</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Meta-analysis as Evidence: Building a Better Pyramid</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>American Medical Association Journals</source><creator>Berlin, Jesse A ; Golub, Robert M</creator><creatorcontrib>Berlin, Jesse A ; Golub, Robert M</creatorcontrib><description>Berlin and Golub talk about seeking out the best evidence that addresses prevention or treatment question. One dogma argues that it is the best-conducted randomized clinical trial (RCT) comprising patients similar to those seen by the clinician, reasoning that a well-done RCT mimics pure experimental conditions better than any other study design, hence minimizing the likelihood of confounding. A counter-argument is that the best evidence is a systematic review with meta-analysis, because this approach can integrate all of the relevant evidence and provide a more reliable answer than a single study, however well conducted.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0098-7484</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-3598</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.8167</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25117128</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JAMAAP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Medical Association</publisher><subject>Evidence-based medicine ; Humans ; Medical treatment ; Meta-analysis ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Physicians ; Questions ; Systematic review ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 2014-08, Vol.312 (6), p.603-605</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Medical Association Aug 13, 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/10.1001/jama.2014.8167$$EPDF$$P50$$Gama$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/10.1001/jama.2014.8167$$EHTML$$P50$$Gama$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>64,314,780,784,3340,27924,27925,76489,76492</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25117128$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Berlin, Jesse A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golub, Robert M</creatorcontrib><title>Meta-analysis as Evidence: Building a Better Pyramid</title><title>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</title><addtitle>JAMA</addtitle><description>Berlin and Golub talk about seeking out the best evidence that addresses prevention or treatment question. One dogma argues that it is the best-conducted randomized clinical trial (RCT) comprising patients similar to those seen by the clinician, reasoning that a well-done RCT mimics pure experimental conditions better than any other study design, hence minimizing the likelihood of confounding. A counter-argument is that the best evidence is a systematic review with meta-analysis, because this approach can integrate all of the relevant evidence and provide a more reliable answer than a single study, however well conducted.</description><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical treatment</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Meta-Analysis as Topic</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Questions</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0098-7484</issn><issn>1538-3598</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkDtPwzAUhS0EoqWwMjCgSCwsCXb8DButykMqggFmy_EDpcoD7ASp_x6Hlg7c5S7fOdL5ADhHMEMQopu1alSWQ0QygRg_AFNEsUgxLcQhmEJYiJQTQSbgJIQ1jIcwPwaTnCLEUS6mgDzbXqWqVfUmVCFRIVl-V8a22t4m86GqTdV-JCqZ2763PnndeNVU5hQcOVUHe7b7M_B-v3xbPKarl4enxd0qVXnB-1QTlRsqBLeQYk4JLJnThFloFKRGOUxLp5lliJmitJqVOaTKMcod1Ig6gmfgetv76buvwYZeNlXQtq5Va7shSEQpxnF2wSN69Q9dd4OPs36p6ERELFLZltK-C8FbJz991Si_kQjK0accfcrRpxx9xsDlrnYoG2v2-J_ACFxsgTG3LxMFzTHEP6DTdz4</recordid><startdate>20140813</startdate><enddate>20140813</enddate><creator>Berlin, Jesse A</creator><creator>Golub, Robert M</creator><general>American Medical Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140813</creationdate><title>Meta-analysis as Evidence: Building a Better Pyramid</title><author>Berlin, Jesse A ; Golub, Robert M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a297t-c4a2d5887e0537540b6fc46e0da05daf35bfc6e616d9bec6b205af657f0c15f43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical treatment</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Meta-Analysis as Topic</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Questions</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Berlin, Jesse A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golub, Robert M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Berlin, Jesse A</au><au>Golub, Robert M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Meta-analysis as Evidence: Building a Better Pyramid</atitle><jtitle>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</jtitle><addtitle>JAMA</addtitle><date>2014-08-13</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>312</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>603</spage><epage>605</epage><pages>603-605</pages><issn>0098-7484</issn><eissn>1538-3598</eissn><coden>JAMAAP</coden><abstract>Berlin and Golub talk about seeking out the best evidence that addresses prevention or treatment question. One dogma argues that it is the best-conducted randomized clinical trial (RCT) comprising patients similar to those seen by the clinician, reasoning that a well-done RCT mimics pure experimental conditions better than any other study design, hence minimizing the likelihood of confounding. A counter-argument is that the best evidence is a systematic review with meta-analysis, because this approach can integrate all of the relevant evidence and provide a more reliable answer than a single study, however well conducted.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Medical Association</pub><pmid>25117128</pmid><doi>10.1001/jama.2014.8167</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0098-7484 |
| ispartof | JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 2014-08, Vol.312 (6), p.603-605 |
| issn | 0098-7484 1538-3598 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1553316797 |
| source | MEDLINE; American Medical Association Journals |
| subjects | Evidence-based medicine Humans Medical treatment Meta-analysis Meta-Analysis as Topic Physicians Questions Systematic review Treatment Outcome |
| title | Meta-analysis as Evidence: Building a Better Pyramid |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T14%3A17%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Meta-analysis%20as%20Evidence:%20Building%20a%20Better%20Pyramid&rft.jtitle=JAMA%20:%20the%20journal%20of%20the%20American%20Medical%20Association&rft.au=Berlin,%20Jesse%20A&rft.date=2014-08-13&rft.volume=312&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=603&rft.epage=605&rft.pages=603-605&rft.issn=0098-7484&rft.eissn=1538-3598&rft.coden=JAMAAP&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001/jama.2014.8167&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3410830121%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1555388679&rft_id=info:pmid/25117128&rft_ama_id=1895230&rfr_iscdi=true |