Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- cma [2025/07/01 16:37] – administrador
+++ cma [2025/07/01 16:39] (current) – administrador
@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 **Recommendation:** Use CMA cautiously and always supplement with open, transparent, and flexible tools like R packages or advanced platforms that support automated workflows and collaboration.
+====== Better Alternatives to Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) ======
+=== 🥇 R (metafor, meta, netmeta) ===
+  * ✅ Supports wide range of meta-analytic models including network and Bayesian methods
+  * ✅ Fully scriptable for reproducibility and customization
+  * ✅ Integrates with literate programming tools (R Markdown, Docker)
+  * ➕ **Why better than CMA:**
+    Most flexible, transparent, and extensible platform for meta-analysis
+=== 🔍 JASP / Jamovi ===
+  * ✅ Free, open-source GUI-based statistical software
+  * ✅ Supports frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis methods
+  * ✅ Easier learning curve than R with reproducible output
+  * ➕ **Why better than CMA:**
+    Combines ease of use with advanced statistical features
+=== 🤖 AI-Assisted Tools: Elicit + RobotReviewer ===
+  * ✅ Automate literature screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment
+  * ✅ Reduce manual workload and errors
+  * ➕ **Why better than CMA:**
+    Automate tedious upstream steps, complement statistical analysis
+=== 🔧 Systematic Review Workflow Platforms: Covidence / DistillerSR ===
+  * ✅ Manage entire systematic review lifecycle (screening, extraction, bias assessment)
+  * ✅ Support collaboration, version control, and audit trails
+  * ➕ **Why better than CMA:**
+    Covers complete review workflow, not just meta-analysis
+=== 📊 Summary Table ===
+^ Tool                     ^ Strengths                                     ^ Why Better Than CMA                          ^
+| R (metafor, meta, netmeta) | Advanced models, scripting, reproducibility  | Maximum flexibility and transparency         |
+| JASP / Jamovi             | GUI, Bayesian & frequentist methods           | User-friendly with rich features              |
+| Elicit + RobotReviewer    | AI-assisted extraction and bias assessment    | Automates and speeds up manual tasks          |
+| Covidence / DistillerSR   | Full systematic review management              | Covers entire SR process with collaboration   |
+=== 🧠 Final Recommendation ===
+  * Use **[[R packages]]** for comprehensive, advanced, and reproducible meta-analyses.
+  * Use **[[JASP]] or Jamovi** for GUI-based advanced analysis with less coding.
+  * Use **[[Elicit]] and RobotReviewer** to automate evidence extraction and bias assessment.
+  * Use **[[Covidence]] or DistillerSR** to manage the full systematic review process.
+  * Use **[[CMA]]** mainly for simple, standalone GUI needs without cutting-edge features.