Book contents
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Series page
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Section I Limits for IVF
- Section II IVF Add-ons
- Section III The Best Policy
- Section IV Embryology
- Section V Ethics and Statistics
- 30A Sex Selection Should Be Permitted for Family Balancing
- 30B Sex Selection Should Be Permitted for Family Balancing
- 31A Reproductive Medicine Should Be Publicly Funded
- 31B Reproductive Medicine Should Be Publicly Funded
- 32A Gamete Donation Should Be Anonymous
- 32B Gamete Donation Should Be Anonymous
- 33A Uterus Transplantation Is a Step Too Far
- 33B Uterus Transplantation Is a Step Too Far
- 34A Meta-analysis Should Not Be Considered Class A Evidence
- 34B Meta-analysis Should Not Be Considered Class A Evidence
- Section VI Male-factor Infertility
- Section VII Genetics
- Section VIII Ovarian Stimulation
- Section IX Hormones and the Environment
- Index
- References
34A - Meta-analysis Should Not Be Considered Class A Evidence
For
from Section V - Ethics and Statistics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 November 2021
Book contents
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Series page
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Section I Limits for IVF
- Section II IVF Add-ons
- Section III The Best Policy
- Section IV Embryology
- Section V Ethics and Statistics
- 30A Sex Selection Should Be Permitted for Family Balancing
- 30B Sex Selection Should Be Permitted for Family Balancing
- 31A Reproductive Medicine Should Be Publicly Funded
- 31B Reproductive Medicine Should Be Publicly Funded
- 32A Gamete Donation Should Be Anonymous
- 32B Gamete Donation Should Be Anonymous
- 33A Uterus Transplantation Is a Step Too Far
- 33B Uterus Transplantation Is a Step Too Far
- 34A Meta-analysis Should Not Be Considered Class A Evidence
- 34B Meta-analysis Should Not Be Considered Class A Evidence
- Section VI Male-factor Infertility
- Section VII Genetics
- Section VIII Ovarian Stimulation
- Section IX Hormones and the Environment
- Index
- References
Summary
Meta-analyses aim to combine the results of a number of smaller studies, looking at similar outcomes, in order to draw support for or against the use of a therapeutic intervention. Some consider meta-analysis as the highest form of evidence yet; their clinical value is limited to summarising aggregated data that cannot distinguish between patients with different clinical profiles.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- 50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine , pp. 173 - 174Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Esterhuizen, TM, Thabane, L. Con: Meta-analysis; some key limitations and potential solutions. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2016;31:882–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broeze, K, Opmeer, BC, van der Veen, F, et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis: a promising approach for evidence synthesis in reproductive medicine. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(6):561–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhont, M. Evidence-based reproductive medicine: a clinical appraisal. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2013;5(3):233–40.Google Scholar