This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: The number of meta-analyses in the health sciences has been dramatically increasing. By 1996, approximately 300 meta-analyses in medicine had been published,¹ and in 1997, this number had increased to more than 400 (Bruce Kupelnick, written communication, August 1998). The movement toward evidence-based medicine suggests that these numbers will continue to increase. The reliability and value of meta-analysis methods have been questioned since its introduction.² User friendly meta-analytic tools may exacerbate the problem, as they have for regression analyses.³

When a researcher prepares to perform a meta-analysis, knowledge of the time a meta-analysis will take would be useful both for grant proposals and for realistic planning. One published meta-analysis on the association among ovarian cancer, reproductive variables, and contraceptive use⁴ measured time spent on task for completing a meta-analysis of summary data compared with known time to do a meta-analysis of individual patient data, and the documented . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Issues related to the conduct of systematic reviews: a focus on the nutrition field
Moher and Tricco
Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008;88:1191-1199.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT