SEARCH PROCEDURE AND DATA EXTRACTION FOR META-ANALYSIS IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

1st International Conference on Chemo and BioInformatics, ICCBIKG  2021, (190-193)

AUTHOR(S) / АУТОР(И): Jasmina M. Obradovic, Vladimir B. Jurisic

E-ADRESS / Е-АДРЕСА: jasmina.obradovic@uni.kg.ac.rs, jurisicvladimir@gmail.com

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/ICCBI21.190O

ABSTRACT / САЖЕТАК:

The meta-analysis provides a unique scientific conclusion with precise statistical analysis of pooled data extracted from previously reported relevant studies. That gives a better insight into the current issue with more statistical certainty than any single study observation in biomedical research. Occasionally, meta-analyses don’t provide a precise time for each step of the search strategy. The complete meta-analysis procedure is usually time-consuming, with 6-18 months reported, but it depends on the numbers of collected articles manually reviewed by two or more researchers to prevent potential bias. The purpose of this paper was to present a part of meta-analysis research with a focus on a timeline manner for extraction procedure and suggestions for preparing the database of collected articles. PRISMA guidelines were followed, and Pub Med, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science for the search were used. EndNote reference manager v.7 and Microsoft Excel 2007 were used for base preparation. Results showed that the final reference number was 4918, and 99.88% of them were excluded. A month was necessary for the search of the electronic databases. For reading titles and abstracts and extracting the papers was needed the fourth month. A month was needed for an additional search of bibliographies of the eligible papers. Even with the dedication of the team of reviewers, it is hard to predict the exact time for conducting the meta-analysis, indeed. Our results could be applicable in planning the potential systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, and overcoming the obstacles in the single database preparation.

KEY WORDS / КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ:

Meta analysis, Systematic review, Biomedical Research

REFERENCES / ЛИТЕРАТУРА:

  • Egger, G.D. Smith, D.G. Altman., Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
  • Cooper, L.V. Hedges, J.C. Valentine., The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis 2nd edition. In: The Hand. of Res. Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 2nd Ed., Russell Sage Foundation, (2009) 1-615.
  • P. Higgins, S.G.Thompson., Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis, Statistics in Medicine, 21 (2002) 1539-1558.
  • Nakagawa, D.W. Noble, A.M. Senior, M. Lagisz., Meta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists, BMC Biology, 15 (2017) 1-14.Zlowodzki, R.W. Poolman, G.M. Kerkhoffs, P. 3rd Tornetta, M. Bhandari, International Evidence-Based Orthopedic Surgery Working Group., How to interpret a meta-analysis and judge its value as a guide for clinical practice, Acta Orthopaedica, 78 (2007) 598-609.
  • Moher, L. Shamseer, M. Clarke, D. Ghersi, A. Liberati, M. Petticrew, P. Shekelle, L.A. Stewart, PRISMA-P Group., Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement, Systematic Reviews, 1 (2015).
  • Smith, D. Devane, C.M. Begley, M. Clarke., Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11 (2011) 15.
  • Qu, Y.N. Wang, P. Xu, D.X. Xiang, R. Yang, W. Wei, Q. Qu., Clinical efficacy of icotinib in lung cancer patients with different EGFR mutation status: a meta-analysis, Oncotarget, 8 (2017) 33961- 33971.
  • Obradovic, J. Todosijevic, V. Jurisic., Application of the conventional and novel methods in testing EGFR variants for NSCLC patients in the last 10 years through different regions: a systematic review, Molecular Biology Reports, 48 (2021) 3593-3604.
  • Jurisic, V. Vukovic, J. Obradovic, L.F. Gulyaeva, N.E. Kushlinskii, N. Djordjević., EGFR Polymorphism and Survival of NSCLC Patients Treated with TKIs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Journal of Oncology, 2020 (2020) 1973241.
  • Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman., PRISMA Group., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement, BMJ, 339 (2009) b2535.
  • R. Jadad, R.A. Moore, D. Carroll, C. Jenkinson, D.J. Reynolds, D.J. Gavaghan, H.J. Mc Quay., Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?, Controlled Clinical Trials, 17 (1996) 1-12.
  • Der Simonian, N. Laird., Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited, Contemporary clinical trials, 45 (2015) 139-145.
  • Biaoxue, L. Hua, G. Wenlong, Y. Shuanying., Efficacy and safety of icotinib in treating non- small cell lung cancer: a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis based on 15 studies, Oncotarget, 7 (2016) 86902-86913.
  • Yi, J. Fan, R. Qian, P. Luo., Efficacy and safety of osimertinib in treating EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC: A meta-analysis, International Journal of Cancer, 145 (2019) 284-294.