Evaluating the results of a Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis

Abstract

The Foot and Ankle Online Journal 2 (7): 5 This is the second of two articles discussing the evaluation of systematic reviews for podiatric physicians. This article will focus on publication bias, heterogeneity, meta-analysis analytic and sensitivity analysis. A recent article related to plantar foot pain will be critically evaluated using the principles discussed in the paper. n the event that the primary studies selected for the systematic review are so dissimilar (heterogeneity) that it is ill-suited to combine the treatment effects, the systematic review will end with a table describing all of the articles abstracted. The table should contain each individual reference with the abstracted information to include: the results of the study as well as, the quality evaluation of the article done by the authors of the systematic review. The results of a systematic review are qualitative rather than quantitative (meta-analysis). The evaluation of individual randomized controlled trials has been covered earlier in this series. 1,2,3 The authors in the narrative results section should explain why the studies were unable to be combined into a pooled estimate of effect (meta-analysis). The results of a systematic review are a function of the quantity and quality of studies found during the review. The conclusion of a systematic review may be that after reviewing the published studies the clinical question cannot be answered and that there is a need for a larger, or a more rigorous study design to answer the clinical question. 4, 5 This article is the second and final article explaining systematic reviews/meta-analysis. The first article evaluated the internal validity of a systematic review. 6 The purpose of this article is to explain the results section of a meta-analysis using a recent meta-analysis of extracorporal shockwave therapy (ESWT) for mechanically induced heel pain 7 as a guide.