The rough guide to systematic reviews and meta-analyses

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The hierarchy of evidence based medicine postulates that systematic reviews of homogenous randomized trials represent one of the uppermost levels of clinical evidence. Indeed, the current overwhelming role of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses in evidence based heath care calls for a thorough knowledge of the pros and cons of these study designs, even for the busy clinician. Despite this sore need, few succinct but thorough resources are available to guide users or would-be authors of systematic reviews. This article provides a rough guide to reading and, summarily, designing and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Related collections

Most cited references 23

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

H. C. Bucher, G H Guyatt, L Griffith … (1997)

When little or no data directly comparing two treatments are available, investigators often rely on indirect comparisons from studies testing the treatments against a control or placebo. One approach to indirect comparison is to pool findings from the active treatment arms of the original controlled trials. This approach offers no advantage over a comparison of observational study data and is prone to bias. We present an alternative model that evaluates the differences between treatment and placebo in two sets of clinical trials, and preserves the randomization of the originally assigned patient groups. We apply the method to data on sulphamethoxazole-trimethoprim or dapsone/pyrimethamine as prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii in HIV infected patients. The indirect comparison showed substantial increased benefit from the former (odds ratio 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.65), while direct comparisons from randomized trials suggests a much smaller difference (risk ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90; p-value for difference of effect = 0.11). Direct comparisons of treatments should be sought. When direct comparisons are unavailable, indirect comparison meta-analysis should evaluate the magnitude of treatment effects across studies, recognizing the limited strength of inference.

0 comments Cited 331 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

J. HIGGINS, S. Green, J Higgins … (2011)

0 comments Cited 252 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

Beverley Shea, Lex Bouter, Joan Peterson … (2007)

Background Thousands of systematic reviews have been conducted in all areas of health care. However, the methodological quality of these reviews is variable and should routinely be appraised. AMSTAR is a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews. Methodology AMSTAR was used to appraise 42 reviews focusing on therapies to treat gastro-esophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and other acid-related diseases. Two assessors applied the AMSTAR to each review. Two other assessors, plus a clinician and/or methodologist applied a global assessment to each review independently. Conclusions The sample of 42 reviews covered a wide range of methodological quality. The overall scores on AMSTAR ranged from 0 to 10 (out of a maximum of 11) with a mean of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 5.6) and median 4.0 (range 2.0 to 6.0). The inter-observer agreement of the individual items ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement. Nine items scored a kappa of >0.75 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.96). The reliability of the total AMSTAR score was excellent: kappa 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.00) and Pearson's R 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98). The overall scores for the global assessment ranged from 2 to 7 (out of a maximum score of 7) with a mean of 4.43 (95% CI: 3.6 to 5.3) and median 4.0 (range 2.25 to 5.75). The agreement was lower with a kappa of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.88). Construct validity was shown by AMSTAR convergence with the results of the global assessment: Pearson's R 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.84). For the AMSTAR total score, the limits of agreement were −0.19±1.38. This translates to a minimum detectable difference between reviews of 0.64 ‘AMSTAR points’. Further validation of AMSTAR is needed to assess its validity, reliability and perceived utility by appraisers and end users of reviews across a broader range of systematic reviews.

0 comments Cited 196 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth

Journal ID (issn): 2037-0504

Journal ID (publisher-id): hsrp

Title: HSR Proceedings in Intensive Care & Cardiovascular Anesthesia

Publisher: EDIMES Edizioni Internazionali Srl

ISSN (Print): 2037-0504

ISSN (Electronic): 2037-0512

Publication date (Print): 2011

Volume: 3

Issue: 3

Pages: 161-173

Affiliations

[1 ]Division of Cardiology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy

[2 ]Meta-analysis and Evidence-based medicine Training in Cardiology (METCARDIO), Ospedaletti, Italy

[3 ]Heart Failure and Cardiac Rehabilitation Unit, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy

[4 ]Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

Author notes

Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai, MD Division of Cardiology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via Del Pozzo, 71 - 41124 Modena, Italy; E-mail: gbiondizoccai@ 123456gmail.com

Article

Publisher ID: 201103161

PMC ID: 3484632

PubMed ID: 23439862

SO-VID: 26cbc772-534e-4253-85c3-6c1e0d2fb55d

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License 3.0, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode.

The rough guide to systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Road 2 Open Meta

Most cited references 23

The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 794

Cited by 24