A conversation with Joseph Lau

Abstract

is a world-leading expert in meta-analysis and systematic reviews. Currently a professor in the Department of Health Services, Policy and Practice and co-director of the Center for Evidence-based Medicine at Brown University, Professor Lau has applied evidence-based methods to a variety of clinical, biomedical and healthcare topics; has developed reliable and efficient methods and tools to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses; and has advanced an understanding on the impact of factors that may contribute to differences of results in scientific studies. His past research includes cumulative metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials, comparison of results from large trials and meta-analyses of small trials, effect of baseline risk in the interpretation of clinical trial results, and empirical evaluation of existing methods of combining data. His current focus is on a Web-based repository of systematic review data, reviews of diagnostic tests, nutrition, clinical practice guidelines, and dissemination of evidencebased methods to varied health-care disciplines. This report is a conversation from an adapted version of an interview, more or less chronologically arranged, between Joseph C. Cappelleri as interviewer and Joseph Lau as interviewee, with Meghan Ingerick recording and transcribing the interview. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.History has been defined in many ways. One of them is as "the branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events" (www.thefreedictionary.com). History is obviously important in general but why should a modern journal on research synthesis include a new section on history? Surely there is enough to learn, read, and research about current developments without focusing on things in the past.There are several reasons for the study of history within research synthesis that make it relevant. Only one of them will be highlighted here, as follows: knowing where we have been lends character, life, and substance to where we are and expect to go. History anchors our profession into a time frame that unites a continuum of experience and knowledge -what does not work, what works, what works better -into a cohesiveness of belonging integral to our development, allowing us to view the lives and works of others in the past within a social context of time and a longitudinal movement of progress. Appreciation of that time frame enables a more considered look into the current development of ideas and new avenues of research.In the current issue of Research Synthesis Methods, the inaugural essay is published on the history of research synthesis from the perspective of a pioneer in the field: Dr. Joseph Lau. Currently a professor in the Department of Health Services, Policy and Practice and co-director of the Center for Evidence-based Medicine at Brown University, Professor Joseph Lau is a world-leading expert in meta-analysis and systematic reviews. In addition to applying evidence-based methods to a variety of clinical, biomedical and health-care topics, he is interested in dev...

The meta‐analytic big bang

“…Nor are these scholars the only ones posing interesting problems for meta‐analysis to address in the future. For example, Lau discusses the need to develop more accessible computer programs that can address all stages of the systematic review process, not just the statistics (Cappelleri and Ingerick, ). Relatively few meta‐analysts have risen to Rubin's () challenge that the fundamental purpose of the field should be to use data to model the likely outcome of a hypothetical ideal study rather than to summarize existing studies that are often more or less removed from the study we really would like to have conducted to answer the question (Madan, Chen, Aveyard, Wang, Yahaya, Munafo, Bauld, and Welton, ; Schmidt and Hunter, ; Shadish, Matt, Navarro, and Phillips, ; Vanhonacker, ; Welton, Caldwell, Adamopoulos, and Vedhara, ).…”

“…Other scholars have done histories that go back further in time (Bohlin, ; Chalmers, Hedges, and Cooper, 2002; Huberty, ; O'Rourke, ), reminding us of such early examples as Pearson's (, ) synthesis of correlations pertaining to the effectiveness of a typhoid vaccine. In contrast, the present article joins an emerging literature documenting how modern meta‐analysis arose (e.g., Becker, ; Hunt, ; Cappelleri and Ingerick, ; Schmidt and Hunter, ). The article discusses what constitutes this meta‐analytic big bang and reflects on why it happened.…”

“…Yet such risk taking can have payoffs when such researchers pursue novel if imperfect answers to a problem. Two related quotes that capture this risk taking are from Joseph Lau, a physician and medical researcher who was central to the spread of meta‐analysis in medicine, especially in the 1980s: ‘In retrospect, I see [my lack of formal statistical training] … as a plus because this ignorance allowed my imagination to wander unencumbered’ (Cappelleri and Ingerick, , p. 3) and ‘because some of the naive ideas of mine often led to somewhere!’ (Cappelleri and Ingerick, , p.13). With great risk can sometimes come great reward.…”

Some Reflections on Combining Meta-Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling

“…3 , 4 , 5 (See also. 6 ) Shadish and Lecy 7 provide a history and a bibliometric analysis of the impact of meta-analysis in various fields.…”

Some reflections on combining meta‐analysis and structural equation modeling

“…The special issue on the origins of modern meta‐analysis edited by Shadish gives several personal perspectives from some of the main contributors to the development of meta‐analysis , , . (See also Cappelleri and Ingerick) Shadish and Lecy provide a history and a bibliometric analysis of the impact of meta‐analysis in various fields.…”