We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Letters |

Using Meta-analysis to Answer Clinical Questions

Demetrios S. Theodoropoulos, MD, DSc; Georgios A. Theodoropoulos, BSc; Donna L. Pecoraro, BA
JAMA. 2001;286(21):2669-2670. doi:10.1001/jama.286.21.2665.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


To the Editor: Dr Ioannidis and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of previously published meta-analyses to address the results of randomized vs nonrandomized studies.1 For clinicians who are not familiar with this method, a number of questions are likely to arise.

First, do meta-analyses yield reliable results? If so, this implies that biases of various studies cancel each other out through meta-analysis. Is this assumption generally accepted? Second, how does meta-analysis avoid compounding previous errors, especially in an environment in which peer influence is considerable? It appears that a meta-analysis may serve only to make scientists aware of their colleagues' research and may not substitute for original work. In this case, what does a meta-analysis of meta-analyses stand for? The meta-analyses presented by the authors originate from a small spectrum of medical specialties and institutions. They are certainly neither random in their inception nor cross-sectional in their representation. Is it possible that meta-analyses ad infinitum only perpetuate or even amplify faults of the original studies? Finally, was all this analysis really worth the effort just to reach the conclusion that there are discrepancies between randomized and nonrandomized studies?


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.