How to Appraise a Systematic Review and Meta Analysis in Clinical Practice | Meta Analysis Example

Dr. Sanil Rege, Consultant Psychiatrist from Psych Scene takes you through a critical appraisal of a research paper outlining the key points in evaluating a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Take-Home Points
• A systematic review is a compilation of (usually) pooled RCTs which together give a combined review.
• A graphical representation of a systematic review is a meta-analysis.
• Large amounts of information can be assimilated quickly by healthcare providers, researchers, and policymakers.
Full article: psychscenehub.com/video/appra...

[@erickmercado8023]

Thank you Dr. Rege, you've given me a lot better confidence in understanding and appraising Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis!! Here's to research!!!

[@PsychiatrySimplified]

Thank you for your feedback 🙏🏻

[@viersternemotel]

Thank you very much for this video, it is great! Useful for both trainees and senior clinicians to keep knowledge up to date!

[@PsychiatrySimplified]

viersternemotel thanks for the feedback

[@sanakauser8451]

Thanku sir...Video gave me some idea

[@jameshrcairns]

This was really useful, thanks

[@PsychiatrySimplified]

James Cairns thanks for the feedback. We appreciate it

[@manovrikshabydrmonikathakur]

Thanku sir..well explained.

[@PsychiatrySimplified]

monika thakur thank you 🙏

[@jacklinemmochi6433]

Very useful ❤

[@PsychiatrySimplified]

Glad to hear that

[@shaun_fitzpatrick]

Hi, for this example how would we work out if the meta analysis is clinically significant? Is 0.5 always the MCID for SMD? Thank you!!!

[@PsychiatrySimplified]

Clinical significance is derived from a clinical judgement of effect size. So based on the outcome - for SMD a clinician will evaluate if the ’difference’ is clinically relevant. So say if a depression study showed a SMD of 4 points on HDRS then a clinician will make a judgement as to whether the 4 points difference is clinically relevant or significant for the patient group in study and if it applies to the patient group the clinician sees. Statistical significance is different - we covered it in another video ua-cam.com/video/0gMIL-s5kSU/v-deo.html
A detailed article on statistical significance (p values and confidence intervals can be read here psychscenehub.com/psychinsights/guide-p-values-confidence-intervals/

[@emc890]

the menta-analysis I am looking at has a "statistics for each study'' table showing p value at 0, so does that mean there is little chance of heterogeneity ?

[@PsychiatrySimplified]

P value is derived from alpha ( it’s a Margin of Error in study for a false positive) - as no study is 100 % accurate. If the Test is for heterogeneity and the p value is

[@PsychiatrySimplified]

Heterogeneity is calculated for the overall pooled group. It is asking the question - are we comparing apples vs apples or are there some pears ( heterogeneity) in this fruit basket

[@emc890]

@@PsychiatrySimplified Your explanation is great thank you.
I did question it, but currently nothing makes sense and I have just confused myself further :')
The article I have states that there is a heterogeneity in the group comparisons but I can not see this on the tables. which is why I think I can not get my head around it.
Thank you for taking time out to get back to me :)