Yes Diana, and to add to Dr Bhala, this is a good reference site study on your
question:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/115/22/2870
//The logic behind meta-analyses is simple and straightforward. It requires
adherence to scientific methods, largely similar to those required for clinical
trials. These scientific methods can be summarized as follows: (1) a clearly
defined prior hypothesis, (2) thorough search of trials, (3) strict inclusion
criteria, and (4) uniform data analysis.13
Clearly Defined Hypothesis
Clinical trials address efficacy and safety of new drugs or interventions. The
main outcome variables and the manner in which they should be tested are
specified in advance. A meta-analysis is similar to a single trial, and, as in a
single trial, it tests a very small number of primary hypotheses, primarily
that the new compound or intervention is more efficacious and safe than the
reference compound or intervention.//
----- Original Message ----
From: Neeraj Bhala <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sat, December 11, 2010 7:28:19 AM
Subject: Re: Question : Metaanalisis
Dear Diana,
Most aspects of analyses for studies, even small ones, whether trials,
observational studies or metaanlyses, should ideally be prespecified to test
hypotheses rather than purely generating hypotheses post-hoc.
Thanks,
Nij
Dr Neeraj Bhala
Clinical Trial Service Unit
Richard Doll Building
University of Oxford
Headington OX3 7LF
+44 7973 316023
On 11 Dec 2010, at 11:36, DIANA RODRIGUEZ HURTADO <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Dear Colleagues:
> In Metaanalisis Research of Clinical trials.
> In the project of investigation as in analitic studies . Is correct to consider
>an hypothesis that we will prove or isnīt ?
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Diana Rodriguez Hurtado M.D FACP
> Associate Professor "Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia"
> Lima , PERU.
|