Professor Julian Higgins explains why he believes the systematic review and meta-analysis methods described in many highly cited papers are routinely misunderstood or misused. Julian Higgins is Professor of Evidence Synthesis at the Bristol Evidence Synthesis, Appraisal and Modelling (BEAM) Centre at the University of Bristol. His research has focussed on the methodology of systematic review and meta-analysis and he has been senior editor of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions since 2003. He is an NIHR Senior Investigator and currently co-directs the NIHR Bristol Evidence Synthesis Group.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become influential and popular. Papers describing aspects of the systematic review and meta-analysis toolkit have become some of the most highly cited papers. I will review those that appear at the top of the most-cited list and explain why I believe the methods described are routinely misunderstood or misused. These include a test for asymmetry in a funnel plot, the I-squared statistic for measuring inconsistency across studies, the random-effects meta-analysis model and the PRIMSA reporting guideline.
All content for Evidence-Based Health Care is the property of Oxford University and is served directly from their servers
with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
Professor Julian Higgins explains why he believes the systematic review and meta-analysis methods described in many highly cited papers are routinely misunderstood or misused. Julian Higgins is Professor of Evidence Synthesis at the Bristol Evidence Synthesis, Appraisal and Modelling (BEAM) Centre at the University of Bristol. His research has focussed on the methodology of systematic review and meta-analysis and he has been senior editor of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions since 2003. He is an NIHR Senior Investigator and currently co-directs the NIHR Bristol Evidence Synthesis Group.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become influential and popular. Papers describing aspects of the systematic review and meta-analysis toolkit have become some of the most highly cited papers. I will review those that appear at the top of the most-cited list and explain why I believe the methods described are routinely misunderstood or misused. These include a test for asymmetry in a funnel plot, the I-squared statistic for measuring inconsistency across studies, the random-effects meta-analysis model and the PRIMSA reporting guideline.
Value-based healthcare: Health economics re-packaged or re-packaging health economics?
Evidence-Based Health Care
25 minutes
7 years ago
Value-based healthcare: Health economics re-packaged or re-packaging health economics?
Sir Muir Gray and Lucy Abel debate: Is value-based health care nothing more than health economics re-packaged or is health economics nothing more than only one of the six contributors to value-based healthcare? Health economics is concerned with how to allocate resources in healthcare to optimise outcomes. Health economists have developed a variety of methods to evaluate whether the cost of providing healthcare interventions is worth the benefits. In other words, whether they are good value. These are based on preferences expressed by wider society relating to the value of increasing the length and quality of life. These values can be applied to an intervention by linking them via clinical outcomes.
Sir Muir Gray is now working with both NHS England and Public Health England to bring about a transformation of care with the aim of increasing value for both populations and individuals and published a series of How To Handbooks for example, How to Get Better Value Healthcare, How To Build Healthcare Systems and How To Create the Right Healthcare Culture.
Lucy Abel is a health economist working within the field of primary care and is part of the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford. She collaborates with research groups to bring the tools of economic evaluation to primary care health science research.
Evidence-Based Health Care
Professor Julian Higgins explains why he believes the systematic review and meta-analysis methods described in many highly cited papers are routinely misunderstood or misused. Julian Higgins is Professor of Evidence Synthesis at the Bristol Evidence Synthesis, Appraisal and Modelling (BEAM) Centre at the University of Bristol. His research has focussed on the methodology of systematic review and meta-analysis and he has been senior editor of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions since 2003. He is an NIHR Senior Investigator and currently co-directs the NIHR Bristol Evidence Synthesis Group.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become influential and popular. Papers describing aspects of the systematic review and meta-analysis toolkit have become some of the most highly cited papers. I will review those that appear at the top of the most-cited list and explain why I believe the methods described are routinely misunderstood or misused. These include a test for asymmetry in a funnel plot, the I-squared statistic for measuring inconsistency across studies, the random-effects meta-analysis model and the PRIMSA reporting guideline.
