Excellent course for beginners

讲解细致、全面、通俗，对于非英语母语的学生也很友好。

Highly Recommended.

It was a good learning

thank you very much

More on peto maybe

Need updates...

very useful

Excellent

Great

Good

I found this course extremely helpful, but I think it needs to be updated. It might be useful to discuss a few key tools that are essential to SRs, one in particular the Equator Network for Systematic Reviews. SRs should be registered with PROSPERO. If you show a PROSPERO record, it will help reinforce some of the concepts you are teaching. Some quiz questions are ambiguous. I do not have my notes at the time of this writing so cannot point out the problem. I think the problem was in Module 2. My most important concern is with the final assignment. Having worked with so many groups on writing as well as evaluating SRs, "those who analyzed the data" would not need to be blinded to the treatment phase but the outcome phase. It is my assumption that the sentence could have been written in a more meaningful way: " . . . were blinded to treatment and outcomes assessment." From a "critical thinking" standpoint, which is what I always try to get students to do because of the quality (or lack thereof) of writing, I thought this through carefully, and came up with a significantly different answer. The course is geared so heavily to what is taught at Johns Hopkins. This can be a bit wearying for some, though I appreciate the quality of your program. The literature searching component could also use an update, but I did find much of the lecture very helpful--there are several webinars that will help the librarian (just as a refresher). The examples that were used throughout the slides were exceptional and helped me to understand much of the material from a student's point of view. Overall, the course will help me with teaching and evaluating SRs and MAs. Thank you!

It's a good course and introduces the learner to systematic reviews. Some of the modules are really good but important information is missing at many places. After the completing the course, I still do not have the complete basic information regarding all the the things that go into a systematic review. The instructors listed them at the end of the module, but it would have been better had they incorporated at least some of them into the modules. Week 1-4 modules were presented well but in week 5 module, there was a lot of repetition regarding the definition of systematic reviews/meta analysis, though what was required was a more clarity in the main content.

I feel rather the course should additionally include the following: 1) the detailed analysis techniques performed in meta analysis- calculation of pooled OR/ SMD, generation of forest plots, funnel plots for publication bias, meta-regression or sub group analysis. 2) the different tools used to perform meta-analysis like RevMan, Stata, etc. 3) conducting meta-analysis in different type of datasets- discrete data, continuous data. 3) network meta-analysis.

Five stars for the excellent teachers and content, but the course is not made for Coursera: very long videos, slides full of words, many references to the group work for the course at JHU, tiny quizzes and just two practical assignments. The format and the examinations can be definitely improved.

The courses are great but some of them requires prior general understanding. Therefore, as a beginner it's a bit hard for me to get the whole picture.

Although the course faculty is good, it would be really helpful if there were notes summarizing each week.

i would love to see how to extract data in software and use it for metaanalysis. which is more practical

A good course that lacked practical information on performing a meta-analysis.

The course was very well-designed. The pace, content and materials were very good. Being the fellow from the related field of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, thought of sharing my views on some points. The last two lectures were comparatively too fast and some participants may not at all have prior exposure to the domain of epidemiology and biostatistics. Hence, the pace for these too needs to be adjusted for more comprehensive assessment. Secondly, the rubrics for the assignments, has scope for more structured presentation either in the form of tables or diagram. As such though they were very helpful, we needed to scroll down too much to find out the elaborate explanation for the same. Hence, a more structured format may be in excel, with vlookup functions for scoring system may be very handy at the back hand. This will facilitate the peer reviewer to have quick eye ball scrolling and in fact maximize the participation.

Am looking forward for more such courses on Meta-Regression and Network-Meta Analysis in future.

Thanks a lot to all the faculties who helped us in completing the course sucessfully. Moreover the peer reviewer help, and their precious time is also duly acknowledged.

Warm Regards and Thanks

Dr Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Additional Professor of Biostatistics

National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre (NDDTC)

Natioal Investigator-National Investigator for

National Survey on Drug Use, India 2019

All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)

New Delhi-110029

INDIA

Email: akmaiims@gmail.com

Very much appreciated the course content and its presentation. Always felt challenged and supported in completing the modules. The course content is well organized and logically sequenced, with clear instructions and use of examples. I especially like the balance in the way that systematic reviews seek to be information-led rather then method led and the inclusion of qualitative synthesis helps appreciate what is considered 'meaningful' nicely offsets any over reliance on statistical significance as the sole criterion regarding the importance of the research outcomes. However, the presentation of this part of the content was tentative and almost apologetic in emphasizing the importance of the qualitative synthesis, yet expressing a sense of uncertainty in how to do it. And sometimes the content got a bit skewed - for example it was stated that one has to be confident in one's judgements in order to make appropriate interpretations. When this kind of inductive process is applied as an assessment protocol it is interpretations that informs judgements, not the other way around (ie in assuming a description - analysis - interpretation - judgment sequence) - after all, one's is being asked for an overall judgement of quality.

Thank you to John Hopkins University for introducing systematic reviews and meta-analysis. I highly enjoyed this short course and found it extremely beneficial for my current postgraduate work. The course is divided logically into six weeks that cover all of the essential skills for understanding and performing systematic review and meta-analysis. All of the key points are well-evidenced and underpinned by relevant literature in the field of scientific methodology. There are short quizzes after every video to formatively assess your own development. I found the course straightforward to complete and highly useful. The instructors are friendly and knowledgeable. Would highly recommend.

This course enables you to understand the fundamentals of Systematic review and metaanalysis in such a way that it will not be forgotten.Each and every video had so much clarity with clear cut learning objectives that were met at the end of the lecture along with a summary.Just going through the stems and responses of the quizzes in itself was like another revision of the entire course.A good grip of fundamentals of meta analysis was a confidence booster.The assignments were thought provoking and the peer evaluation process was very liberating,On the whole a great course .

Amazing course, definitely learned a lot regarding systematic reviews. The only thing I found to be a bit challenging is that at some lectures they assume you have previous knowledge in stats, while for someone like me this is my first stats course. But don't worry, it doesn't interfere a lot without your overall understanding of systematic reviews.

Note: it focuses a lot more on systematic review that it does on meta-analysis, which kind of makes sense because meta-analysis is only an optional component of a systematic review, as you'll get to know in this course.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank COURSERA for my learnings about systematic review and meta analysis. Your course has provided me the basic knowledge on systematic review and meta analysis. The assignments the course provided have increased my confidence in this topic. I would like in the future to again enroll in advanced systematic review and meta analysis that will entail teaching me how to use the software in doing meta analysis and to engage in a collaborative work utilizing SRMA.