A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Our objective was to systematically assess the differences in features, results, and usability of currently available meta-analysis programs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Systematic review of software. We did an exte...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2007-09-01
|
| Series: | BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| Online Access: | http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/7/40 |
| _version_ | 1819027220769800192 |
|---|---|
| author | Yu Ly-Mee Bax Leon Ikeda Noriaki Moons Karel GM |
| author_facet | Yu Ly-Mee Bax Leon Ikeda Noriaki Moons Karel GM |
| author_sort | Yu Ly-Mee |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Our objective was to systematically assess the differences in features, results, and usability of currently available meta-analysis programs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Systematic review of software. We did an extensive search on the internet (Google, Yahoo, Altavista, and MSN) for specialized meta-analysis software. We included six programs in our review: Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA), MetAnalysis, MetaWin, MIX, RevMan, and WEasyMA. Two investigators compared the features of the software and their results. Thirty independent researchers evaluated the programs on their usability while analyzing one data set.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The programs differed substantially in features, ease-of-use, and price. Although most results from the programs were identical, we did find some minor numerical inconsistencies. CMA and MIX scored highest on usability and these programs also have the most complete set of analytical features.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In consideration of differences in numerical results, we believe the user community would benefit from openly available and systematically updated information about the procedures and results of each program's validation. The most suitable program for a meta-analysis will depend on the user's needs and preferences and this report provides an overview that should be helpful in making a substantiated choice.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T05:39:01Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8454be4121a84eaea91c84a5ca24d83e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2288 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T05:39:01Z |
| publishDate | 2007-09-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| spelling | doaj.art-8454be4121a84eaea91c84a5ca24d83e2022-12-21T19:14:19ZengBMCBMC Medical Research Methodology1471-22882007-09-01714010.1186/1471-2288-7-40A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studiesYu Ly-MeeBax LeonIkeda NoriakiMoons Karel GM<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Our objective was to systematically assess the differences in features, results, and usability of currently available meta-analysis programs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Systematic review of software. We did an extensive search on the internet (Google, Yahoo, Altavista, and MSN) for specialized meta-analysis software. We included six programs in our review: Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA), MetAnalysis, MetaWin, MIX, RevMan, and WEasyMA. Two investigators compared the features of the software and their results. Thirty independent researchers evaluated the programs on their usability while analyzing one data set.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The programs differed substantially in features, ease-of-use, and price. Although most results from the programs were identical, we did find some minor numerical inconsistencies. CMA and MIX scored highest on usability and these programs also have the most complete set of analytical features.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In consideration of differences in numerical results, we believe the user community would benefit from openly available and systematically updated information about the procedures and results of each program's validation. The most suitable program for a meta-analysis will depend on the user's needs and preferences and this report provides an overview that should be helpful in making a substantiated choice.</p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/7/40 |
| spellingShingle | Yu Ly-Mee Bax Leon Ikeda Noriaki Moons Karel GM A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| title | A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies |
| title_full | A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies |
| title_fullStr | A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies |
| title_full_unstemmed | A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies |
| title_short | A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies |
| title_sort | systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta analysis of causal studies |
| url | http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/7/40 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yulymee asystematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT baxleon asystematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT ikedanoriaki asystematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT moonskarelgm asystematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT yulymee systematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT baxleon systematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT ikedanoriaki systematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT moonskarelgm systematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies |