Home About Login Register Search Current Archive Announcement

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: An overview with the help of R Software

Editor IJSMI


When a clinician wants to take a decision on a treatment, procedure or diagnosis with respect to a disease or condition, outcome from a single research may not be right or helpful. Systematic review [1] provides the clinician with the strongest evidence about the available treatment or procedure related to a particular disease by including the evidences from the research studies which are similar in nature with respect to the scope, objective and the inclusion criteria of the study. Systematic reviews are different from the normal review or literature review as the later will not include all the relevant studies with respect to the particular problem and hence the conclusion drawn from it are not valid and generalizable. Meta-Analysis [2] is a statistical tool helps us to combine the results from the studies under consideration and arrive at an aggregate value for the parameters under study such as odds ratio, survival rate etc. This paper provides an overview of systematic review and meta-analysis with the use of an illustrative example. Meta-analysis is carried out using the r statistical software package. 


Systematic review;meta-analysis;r software;metafor;PRISMA;PICOS;Forest plot;funnel plot;inclusion criteria;exclusion criteria

Full Text:



Centre for reviews, & dissemination (CRD). (2009). Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination

DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled clinical trials, 7(3), 177-188.

Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96(3), 118-121.

Meline, T. (2006). Selecting studies for systematic review: Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Contemporary issues in communication science and disorders, 33(21-27).

Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A. W., Cronin, E., ... & Ghersi, D. (2008). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PloS one, 3(8), e3081.

Egger, M., Zellweger-Zähner, T., Schneider, M., Junker, C., Lengeler, C., & Antes, G. (1997). Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. The Lancet, 350(9074), 326-329.

Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003). The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 3(1), 25.

Coe, R. (2002). It's the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (Revised edition). New York, 7.

Lewis, Steff, and Mike Clarke. "Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees." BMJ: British Medical Journal 322, no. 7300 (2001): 1479.

Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: a simple funnel‐plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta‐analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455-463.

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org.


Team, R. C. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2013.


ByteCompile, T. R. U. E., & LazyData, T. R. U. E. (2016). Package ‘metafor’.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3000/ijsmi.v3i1.7

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.