Vertaile menetelmiä

	Meta-analytic case report	Meta-analyyttinen tapaussarja
Tieteenala	Epidemiologia	Epidemiologia
Menetelmäperhe	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Syntyvuosi	2000s–2010s (formalized methodology)	2000s–2010s (formalization of methodology)
Kehittäjä	Developed iteratively in clinical epidemiology; formalized guidance by Murad et al. (2018)	Developed iteratively in clinical epidemiology; methodological guidance formalized by Murad et al. and others in the 2000s–2010s
Tyyppi	Synthesis / secondary research design	Evidence synthesis / meta-analytic method
Alkuperäislähde	Murad, M. H., Sultan, S., Haffar, S., & Bazerbachi, F. (2018). Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 23(2), 60–63.	Lovato, L. C., Hill, K., Hertert, S., Hunninghake, D. B., & Probstfield, J. L. (2002). Recruitment for controlled clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography. Controlled Clinical Trials, 18(4), 328–352. [For meta-analytic approaches to non-randomised series see:] Murad, M. H., Sultan, S., Haffar, S., & Bazerbachi, F. (2018). Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 23(2), 60–63.
Rinnakkaisnimet	pooled case report analysis, systematic case report review, case report meta-analysis, MACR	pooled case series, systematic review of case series, case series meta-analysis, aggregated case series
Liittyvät	3	1
Tiivistelmä	A meta-analytic case report is a secondary research methodology that systematically identifies, appraises, and quantitatively or qualitatively pools data from multiple published individual case reports on the same clinical phenomenon. It is used most often when randomized trials or cohort data are unavailable — particularly for rare diseases, uncommon drug reactions, or novel presentations — and transforms isolated anecdotal observations into a more robust aggregate picture.	A meta-analytic case series is an evidence-synthesis design that systematically identifies, appraises, and statistically pools outcome data from multiple single-arm case series on a defined clinical condition or intervention. It occupies a middle tier of evidence — above individual case reports and unsystematic series, but below pooled randomized trials — and is particularly valuable when experimental designs are ethically or practically unavailable.