What method involves counting the number of studies that favor one intervention over another?

The method that involves counting the number of studies that favor one intervention over another is commonly referred to as vote counting. This approach simply quantifies the number of studies that report favorable outcomes for each intervention, allowing researchers to determine which intervention has more supporting evidence based on a tally of results.

Vote counting is a straightforward method; however, it does not account for the magnitude of effects or the quality of the studies. It also overlooks heterogeneity and statistical significance, focusing solely on the direction of the findings—whether they support one intervention or the other. This approach is useful in providing a quick comparison but can be misleading if the included studies vary significantly in terms of quality or design.

In contrast, meta-analysis systematically combines the results of multiple studies, using statistical methods to provide a more nuanced understanding of overall effects. Forest plotting is a visual representation often used in meta-analysis to display the results of individual studies along with the summary outcome, while a systematic review comprehensively synthesizes the existing literature on a topic, assessing study quality and providing a robust synthesis of findings. These methods offer more rigorous evaluations than vote counting by integrating detailed data analysis rather than simply tallying the studies.