In June 2026, I completed the Meta-Analysis Academy, a structured ten-week training programme in systematic reviews and meta-analyses developed for healthcare professionals seeking to build independent research capabilities.
The programme was created and is led by Dr. Rhanderson Cardoso, MD, FACC, a cardiologist whose academic training includes residency at the University of Miami and teaching recognition from Harvard Medical School. His published work, cited across more than 2,500 references and incorporated into major cardiology guidelines, reflects the methodological rigour that underpins the curriculum.
The training combines recorded theoretical modules with applied exercises and live weekly sessions, guiding participants through the full research pipeline — from the formulation of a research question to manuscript preparation, statistical analysis, and editorial submission.
Programme Curriculum
The Meta-Analysis Academy is organised into the following modules:
- Introduction Module
- Module 1 — How to Develop Ideas
- Module 2 — The Research Question
- Module 3 — Viability and Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
- Module 4 — Search Strategy
- Module 5 — Medical Databases and Protocol Registration
- Module 6 — Study Screening and Selection
- Module 7 — Data Extraction
- Module 8 — Statistics
- Module 9 — Writing
- Module 10 — Submission and Editorial Review
- Additional Module — Quality Assessment
The methodology taught does not require institutional affiliation, ethics committee approval, or specialist statistical consultation, making it directly applicable to clinicians practising across diverse healthcare systems and geographic contexts.
Current Research Activity
Following completion of the programme, I joined a collaborative research group currently developing systematic review and meta-analysis protocols in the field of psychiatry.
This area of investigation reflects a longstanding interest in mental health as an integral dimension of primary care. Family medicine occupies a distinctive position within healthcare systems precisely because it addresses the full spectrum of a patient’s experience — and mental health conditions, whether presenting as primary diagnoses or as comorbidities shaping chronic disease management, are consistently among the most prevalent and undertreated problems encountered in general practice.
The intersection between psychiatry and family medicine is not incidental. It reflects the reality that most patients with depression, anxiety disorders, and other common mental health conditions are first seen — and in many contexts, exclusively managed — by generalist physicians. Developing a more rigorous evidence base for interventions at this interface is therefore directly relevant to improving outcomes in primary care settings, including those with limited access to specialist psychiatric services.
Research outputs will be documented here as protocols are registered and projects progress toward submission.
Relevance to Clinical and Academic Practice
For a family physician working across primary care, telemedicine, and global health, the ability to critically appraise and synthesise published evidence is directly relevant to clinical decision-making, service design, and the development of practice-based guidelines applicable in resource-varied settings.
The training consolidates two interconnected competencies central to contemporary clinical practice. The first is the critical appraisal of evidence — the ability to distinguish interventions with robust scientific support from those promoted under commercial, institutional, or cultural pressures that precede or bypass rigorous validation. In a medical landscape where the adoption of unproven practices is increasingly normalised, this capacity for critical evaluation is not peripheral to clinical work; it is foundational to it. The second is the ability to actively contribute to the production of high-level scientific evidence. Meta-analyses represent the highest tier of the evidence hierarchy, and the training at the Meta-Analysis Academy was specifically designed to equip clinicians to conduct and publish work at this level — not merely as consumers of evidence, but as its producers.