A critical aspect of reviewing literature is being able to extract pertinent and relevant data, and comparing statistical evidence to the topic being researched. Systematic review and meta-analysis are considered the highest level of evidence when evaluating results. What is the main difference between the two? Given an a meta-analysis, could you determine if the hypothesis/null hypothesis is defined and supported by the data in the review?
Instructions
This discussion has two parts.
1. Perform an internet search and locate a resource/webpage that provides a definition or comparison of systematic review and meta-analysis. Provide a one sentence summary of the main difference between the two and include a link to the resource.
2. The following link is to a recent meta-analysis regarding the use of aspirin as a preventative measure. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2721178
Read the article and answer the following questions to the best of your ability.
What is the hypothesis/null hypothesis or question being asked?
What are the units of measurement (i.e. studies done on the topic)?
What are the measures of central tendency, variability, and prediction?
Is there inclusion or exclusion criteria? Do either of criteria limit bias, and if so in what manner?
Is the sample size of studies an issue? Why or why not?
Is the hypothesis supported based on statistical results of meta-analysis? Why or why not?
What is your opinion of the meta-analysis?
Include references at the bottom of your initial post in correct APA format (including JAMA article and search results), review your peer references and provide constructive feedback if applicable.
