+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis

      Read this article at

          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.


          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses present results by combining and analyzing data from different studies conducted on similar research topics. In recent years, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been actively performed in various fields including anesthesiology. These research methods are powerful tools that can overcome the difficulties in performing large-scale randomized controlled trials. However, the inclusion of studies with any biases or improperly assessed quality of evidence in systematic reviews and meta-analyses could yield misleading results. Therefore, various guidelines have been suggested for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses to help standardize them and improve their quality. Nonetheless, accepting the conclusions of many studies without understanding the meta-analysis can be dangerous. Therefore, this article provides an easy introduction to clinicians on performing and understanding meta-analyses.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

          The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with "trial flow", study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies.

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Desflurane and Sevoflurane in Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

              The authors performed a meta-analysis to investigate whether the cardioprotective effects of volatile anesthetics translate into decreased morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. It is commonly believed that the choice of the primary anesthetic agent does not result in different outcomes after cardiac surgery. Recent evidence, however, has indicated that volatile anesthetics improve postischemic recovery at a cellular level, in isolated hearts, in animals, and in humans. Four investigators independently searched BioMedCentral and PubMed. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and comparison of a total intravenous anesthesia regimen versus an anesthesia plan including desflurane or sevoflurane performed on cardiosurgical patients. Exclusion criteria were duplicate publications, nonhuman experimental studies, and no outcome data. The endpoints were the rate of perioperative myocardial infarction and hospital mortality. The search yielded 22 studies, involving 1,922 patients. Volatile anesthetics were associated with significant reductions of myocardial infarctions (24/979 [2.4%] in the volatile anesthetics group v 45/874 [5.1%] in the control arm, odds ratio [OR] = 0.51 [0.32-0.84], p for effect = 0.008, and p for heterogeneity = 0.77) and mortality (4/977 [0.4%] v 14/872 [1.6%], OR = 0.31 [0.12-0.80], p for effect = 0.02, and p for heterogeneity = 0.88). Desflurane and sevoflurane have cardioprotective effects that result in decreased morbidity and mortality. The present data show for the first time that the choice of an anesthetic regimen based on administration of halogenated anesthetics is associated with a better outcome after cardiac surgery.

                Author and article information

                Korean J Anesthesiol
                Korean J Anesthesiol
                Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
                Korean Society of Anesthesiologists
                April 2018
                2 April 2018
                : 71
                : 2
                : 103-112
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inje University Seoul Paik Hospital, Seoul, Korea
                [2 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Hyun Kang, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 84, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06911, Korea Tel: 82-2-6299-2571, 2579, 2586, Fax: 82-2-6299-2585 Email: roman00@ 123456naver.com
                Copyright © The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists, 2018

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Statistical Round


                Comment on this article