A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies
<p style="text-align:justify;"> <b> Background:</b> Our objective was to systematically assess the differences in features, results, and usability of currently available meta-analysis programs.<br/><br/> <b>Methods:</b> Systematic review of softwa...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BioMed Central
2007
|
| _version_ | 1797099968144605184 |
|---|---|
| author | Bax, L Yu, L Ikeda, N Moons, K |
| author_facet | Bax, L Yu, L Ikeda, N Moons, K |
| author_sort | Bax, L |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <p style="text-align:justify;"> <b> Background:</b> Our objective was to systematically assess the differences in features, results, and usability of currently available meta-analysis programs.<br/><br/> <b>Methods:</b> 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.<br/><br/> <b>Results:</b> 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.<br/><br/> <b>Conclusion:</b> 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 | 2024-03-07T05:31:03Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:e247f751-aca6-4fcc-9b85-7763a130fa44 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T05:31:03Z |
| publishDate | 2007 |
| publisher | BioMed Central |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:e247f751-aca6-4fcc-9b85-7763a130fa442022-03-27T10:00:03ZA systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studiesJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:e247f751-aca6-4fcc-9b85-7763a130fa44EnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordBioMed Central2007Bax, LYu, LIkeda, NMoons, K <p style="text-align:justify;"> <b> Background:</b> Our objective was to systematically assess the differences in features, results, and usability of currently available meta-analysis programs.<br/><br/> <b>Methods:</b> 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.<br/><br/> <b>Results:</b> 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.<br/><br/> <b>Conclusion:</b> 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> |
| spellingShingle | Bax, L Yu, L Ikeda, N Moons, K A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies |
| 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 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT baxl asystematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT yul asystematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT ikedan asystematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT moonsk asystematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT baxl systematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT yul systematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT ikedan systematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies AT moonsk systematiccomparisonofsoftwarededicatedtometaanalysisofcausalstudies |