Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pitfalls in meta-analysis

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Inflammopharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Systematic reviews with meta-analyses are powerful instruments to synthesize research. If done correctly, they may constitute the highest level of evidence by combining several individual studies. As high-quality evidence is scarce in the field of complementary medicine, meta-analyses of randomized trials may shed new light on both efficacy and safety, but they must be properly conducted. In this commentary to a recently published paper we elaborate on methodological pitfalls in meta-analysis that every researcher should avoid to gain true high-quality evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aqaeinezhad Rudbane SM, Rahmdel S, Abdollahzadeh SM et al (2018) The efficacy of probiotic supplementation in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Inflammopharmacology 26:67–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2009) Introduction to meta analysis. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed AT, Khattab M, Ahmed AM et al (2017) The therapeutic effect of probiotics on rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Clin Rheumatol 36:2697–2707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(264–9):w64

    Google Scholar 

  • Panic N, Leoncini E, De Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S (2013) Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS ONE 8:e83138

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité, University Medicine Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Andriko Palmowski

  2. Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Sabrina M. Nielsen

  3. Research Unit of Rheumatology, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital, 5000, Odense, Denmark

    Sabrina M. Nielsen

Authors
  1. Andriko Palmowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sabrina M. Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andriko Palmowski.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they do not have any relevant conflict of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Palmowski, A., Nielsen, S.M. Pitfalls in meta-analysis. Inflammopharmacol 28, 617–618 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10787-019-00606-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10787-019-00606-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation