What are the differences between systematic reviews and meta-analyses?

What are the differences between systematic reviews and meta-analyses?

Systematic reviews summarize existing research on a specific topic, while meta-analyses statistically combine results from multiple studies.

Can you explain why someone would choose one over the other?

Certainly! A systematic review is useful for understanding the breadth of research, while a meta-analysis provides a more precise estimate of effects.

Are there specific fields where one is preferred?

Yes, in fields like medicine, meta-analyses are often preferred for clinical guidelines, while systematic reviews are common in social sciences.

How do researchers conduct a systematic review?

Researchers follow a structured process: defining a question, searching for studies, selecting relevant ones, and synthesizing findings.

What are some common pitfalls in these processes?

Common pitfalls include publication bias, poor study selection criteria, and not considering the quality of the included studies.