Exam 8: Critically Appraising Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Some systematic reviews and meta-analyses are seriously biased.
True
Which of the following statements is/are correct about exclusion and inclusion criteria in systematic reviews?
D
Explain how to interpret odds ratios, risk ratios, and number needed to treat estimates.
Interpreting odds ratios, risk ratios, and number needed to treat estimates is essential for understanding the results of medical research and making informed decisions about treatment options.
Odds ratios are a measure of the strength of association between an exposure and an outcome. They compare the odds of an outcome occurring in one group (e.g., treatment group) to the odds of the outcome occurring in another group (e.g., control group). An odds ratio of 1 indicates no association, while an odds ratio greater than 1 indicates a positive association and an odds ratio less than 1 indicates a negative association. For example, an odds ratio of 2 would mean that the odds of the outcome occurring in the treatment group are twice as high as in the control group.
Risk ratios, also known as relative risks, are similar to odds ratios but are calculated with the actual risk of an outcome rather than the odds. They compare the risk of an outcome in one group to the risk in another group. A risk ratio of 1 indicates no difference in risk between the two groups, while a risk ratio greater than 1 indicates an increased risk in the first group and a risk ratio less than 1 indicates a decreased risk in the first group.
Number needed to treat (NNT) estimates are used to assess the clinical significance of a treatment. It represents the number of patients that would need to be treated with a specific intervention in order to prevent one additional bad outcome compared to a control intervention. A lower NNT indicates that the treatment is more effective, as fewer patients need to be treated to achieve a positive outcome.
In interpreting these estimates, it's important to consider the confidence intervals around the point estimates, as well as the clinical relevance of the results. Additionally, understanding the baseline risk of the outcome in question is crucial for interpreting these measures accurately. Overall, interpreting odds ratios, risk ratios, and NNT estimates requires a comprehensive understanding of statistical concepts and clinical context to make informed decisions about treatment options.
A meta-analysis might inappropriately lump together effect sizes from weakly controlled studies and well-controlled studies.
There is widespread agreement that researchers whose findings fail to support the effectiveness of an intervention are just as likely to submit their studies for publication as are researchers with positive findings.
Identify the risks in relying exclusively on systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Some reviews search for studies in a more comprehensive fashion than others.
Which of the following statements is/are true about the PRISMA group?
If an experimental group's mean of 60 is a better outcome than the control group's mean of 55, and the standard deviation is 10, then the d-index equals:
Strong and statistically significant effect-sizes assure clinical significance.
Which of the following statements is/are correct about systematic reviews and meta-analyses?
A systematic review showing whether a particular intervention, program or policy has been found to be effective by different independent researchers in different types of settings will give you better evidentiary grounds than just one study for deciding whether the intervention might be effective in your practice.
Which of the following statements is/are correct about the interpretation of a correlation that equals .30?
If a review is systematic, we can be sure that its exclusion and inclusion criteria were appropriate.
Which of the following statements is/are correct about effect-sizes?
A correlation of .50 and a d-index of .80 are considered to represent:
The Cochrane Collaboration and Campbell Collaboration are notorious for their biased reviews.
Explain why systematic reviews and meta-analyses reside at the top of the evidentiary hierarchy for
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)