Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
A review study is a general term for research methods that systematically collect and organize existing literature on a specific clinical topic, clearly showing what is currently known and what remains unknown. Among these, the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is considered the most reliable type of review study, based on rigorous, comprehensive literature search and evaluation procedures.
Types of Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews (SLR)
- SLR and Meta-Analysis
- Network Meta-Analysis
- Bayesian Meta-Analysis
Scoping Reviews and Mapping
- Scoping Reviews
- State-of-the-Art Reviews
- Umbrella Reviews
Rapid Reviews and Topic-Specific Reviews
- Topic-Specific Reviews
- Mini Reviews
- Narrative Reviews
A meta-analysis is a method that statistically integrates the results of multiple clinical studies (RCTs and observational studies) conducted on the same topic to derive treatment effect estimates with greater precision than any single study. Meta-analysis is typically conducted based on a systematic review and is internationally recognized as the method providing the highest level of evidence.
Value of Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
A panoramic view of the entire evidence base in a disease area
By integrating scattered research findings, treatment efficacy, safety, outcomes, and patient backgrounds can be understood quantitatively and structurally.
Clarifying evidence gaps
Visualizes areas where research is lacking, patient populations that have not been studied, and missing outcomes. This provides Medical Affairs with the scientific basis for deciding what research to conduct next (RWE/PMS/exploratory studies).
Use as a scientific basis for Medical Plans
Identifies unmet medical needs, priority evidence areas, optimal outcome measures, and differentiation points from competitors, serving as the backbone for key Medical Plan items.
Quantitatively demonstrating treatment efficacy and safety, strengthening scientific evidence (Meta-Analysis)
Integrates multiple studies to deliver more precise effect estimates, assess consistency and heterogeneity, and support subgroup analyses—capabilities that single studies cannot provide alone.
Neutral visualization of competitive positioning within the disease area
Because the analysis is based on publicly available data rather than being company-driven, competitive comparisons are scientifically neutral and do not conflict with regulations—a significant advantage.
Deepening scientific discussions with KOLs
Reviews clearly identify the papers KOLs reference, differences in their perspectives, and trends in evaluation endpoints, enabling deeper and more substantive scientific discussions.
Track Record
To date, we have conducted more than 20 review studies in the following disease areas:
Oncology
Nephrology
Respiratory
Cardiovascular
Neurology
Toxicology
Ophthalmology
Rheumatology
Epidemiology
Endocrinology
IJC Heart & Vasculature
Identification of predictive factors interacting with heart rate reduction for potential beneficial clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis