Skip to main content
PMC home page
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research logoLink to International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
. 2008 Feb 19;17(1):55–61. doi: 10.1002/mpr.240

Meta‐analyses of the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia: conceptual and methodological issues

Sukanta Saha 1, David Chant 1,2, John Mcgrath 1,2,✉
PMCID: PMC6878550  PMID: 18286464

Abstract

While meta‐analytic techniques are routine in the synthesis of data from randomized controlled trials, there are no clear guidelines on how best to summarize frequency data such as incidence and prevalence estimates. Based on data from two recent systematic reviews of the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia, this paper explores some of the conceptual and methodological issues related to the meta‐analyses of frequency estimates in epidemiology. Because variations in the incidence and prevalence of disorders such as schizophrenia can be informative, there is a case against collapsing data into one pooled estimate. Variations in frequency estimates can be displayed graphically, or summarized with quantiles around measures of central tendency. If pooled estimated are of interest, then researchers need to be aware that studies based on large samples will leverage greater weight on the pooled value. Based on systematic reviews of the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia, we explore if these and related issues are of practical concern. When used with appropriate caution, meta‐analysis can complement the synthesis of frequency data in epidemiology; however, researchers interested in variation should not rely on meta‐analysis alone. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: schizophrenia, systematic review, meta‐analysis, incidence, prevalence, epidemiology

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (354.1 KB).

REFERENCES

  1. Aleman A, Kahn RS, Selten JP. Sex differences in the risk of schizophrenia: evidence from meta‐analysis. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003; 60: 565–71. DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.60.6.565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Berkey CS, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Colditz GA. A random‐effects regression model for meta‐analysis. Stat Med 1995; 14: 395–411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berlin JA. Invited commentary: benefits of heterogeity in meta‐analysis of data from epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 142: 383–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cantor‐Graae E, Selten JP. Schizophrenia and migration: a meta‐analysis and review. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 12–24. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.1.12 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Clarke MJ, Stewart LA. Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta‐analyses? Br Med J 1994; 309: 1007–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dickersin K. Systematic reviews in epidemiology: why are we so far behind? Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31: 6–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta‐analysis: principles and procedures. Br Med J 1997; 315: 1533–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Flather MD, Farkouh ME, Pogue JM, Yusuf S. Strengths and limitations of meta‐analysis: larger studies may be more reliable. Controlled Clinical Trials 1997; 18: 568–79; discussion 661–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Goldner EM, Hsu L, Waraich P, Somers JM. Prevalence and incidence studies of schizophrenic disorders: a systematic review of the literature. Can J Psychiatry 2002; 47: 833–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Greenland S. Meta‐analysis In Rothman KJ, Greenland S. (eds) Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998: 236. [Google Scholar]
  11. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539–58. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. Br Med J 2003; 327: 557–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Pooling research results: benefits and limitations of meta‐analysis. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement 1999; 25: 462–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kraemer HC, Gardner C, Brooks JOI, Yessavage J. Advantages of excluding underpower studies in meta‐analysis: inclusionist versus exclusionist view‐points. Psychological Methods 1998; 3: 23–31. [Google Scholar]
  15. McGrath J, Saha S, Welham J, El Saadi O, MacCauley C, Chant D. A systematic review of the incidence of schizophrenia: the distribution of rates and the influence of sex, urbanicity, migrant status and methodology. BMC Med 2004; 2: 13. DOI: 10.1186/1741‐7015‐2‐13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. McGrath JJ. Invited commentary: gaining traction on the epidemiologic landscape of schizophrenia. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 158: 301–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. McGrath JJ. Variations in the incidence of schizophrenia: data versus dogma. Schizophrenia Bull 2006; 32: 195–7. DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbi052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Murray CJ, Lopez AD, Jamison DT. The global burden of disease in 1990: summary results, sensitivity analysis and future directions. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 1994; 72: 495–509. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Petitti DB. Approaches to heterogeneity in meta‐analysis. Stat Med 2001; 20: 3625–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Saha S, Chant D, McGrath J. A systematic review of mortality in schizophrenia: is the differential mortality gap worsening over time? Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007; 64: 1123–31. DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.64.10.1123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Saha S, Chant D, Welham J, McGrath J. The systematic review of the prevalence of schizophrenia. PLoS Medicine 2005; 2: 0413–0433. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB. Meta‐analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta‐analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. The Journal of the American Medical Association 2000; 283: 2008–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES