Systematic review and meta-analysis in anatomic pathology

Histopathology

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 481-487

  Heatley, M K ^a  

^a ROYAL LIVERPOOL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Anatomic pathology; Meta analysis; Pathology; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL STUDY; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INTERNET; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGICAL ANATOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0034119355     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2559.2000.00943.x     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. 1. Sackett D, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. Br. Med J. 1996: 312; 71-72.
2. 2. Muir-Gray JA. Where's the chief knowledge officer? To manage the most precious resource of all. Br. Med. J. 1998: 317; 832.
3. 3. Konski AA, Bracy PM, Jurs SG, Weiss SJ, Zeidner SR. Cost minimization analysis of various treatment options for surgical stage I endometrial carcinoma. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1997: 37; 367-373.
4. 4. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. New Eng. J. Med. 1987: 316; 450-455.
5. 5. Chalmers I, Dickersin K, Chalmers TC. Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda. Br. Med. J. 1992: 305; 786-787.
6. 6. Eysenck HJ. Meta-analysis and its problems. Br. Med. J. 1994: 309; 789-792.
7. 7. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. The science of reviewing research. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1993: 703; 125-134.
8. 8. Blackwell KE, Fu Y-S, Calcaterra TC. Laryngeal dysplasia: a clinicopathologic study. Cancer 1995: 75; 457-463.
9. 9. Thacker SB. Meta-analysis. A quantitative approach to research integration. JAMA 1988: 259; 1685-1689.
10. 10. Lau J, Ioannidis PA, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann. Int. Med. 1997: 127; 820-826.
11. 11. Melnikow J, Nuovo J, Willan AR, Chan BKS, Howell LP. Natural history of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet. Gynecol. 1998: 92; 727-735.
12. 12. Buntinx F, Knottnerus JA, Andre J, Crebolder HFJM, Essed GGM. The effect of different sampling devices on the presence of endocervical cells in cervical smears. A systematic literature review. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 1994: 3; 23-30.
13. 13. Heatley MK. Systematic review and meta-analysis in anatomic pathology: the value of nuclear DNA content in predicting progression in low grade CIN, the significance of the hislological subtype on prognosis in cervical carcinoma. Histol. Histopath. 1999: 14; 203-215.
14. 14. Allen DG, Heintz APM, Touw FWMM. A meta-analysis of residual disease and survival in stage III and IV carcinoma of the ovary. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol. 1995: 16; 349-356.
15. 15. Bajema IM, Hagen EC, Van Der Woude FJ, Bruijn JA. Wegener's granulomatosis: a meta-analysis of 349 literary case reports. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 1997: 129; 17-22.
16. 16. Baldessarini RJ, Hegarty JD, Bird ED, Benes FM. Meta-analysis of postmortem studies of Alzheimer's disease-like neuropathology in schizophrenia. Am. J. Psychiatry 1997: 154; 861-863.
17. 17. Brandwein MS, Rothstein A, Lawson W, Bodian C, Urken ML. Sinonasal melanoma: a clinicopathologic study of 25 cases and literature meta-analysis. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 1997: 123; 290-296.
18. 18. Buchanan DJ, Schlaerth J, Kurosaki T. Primary vaginal melanoma: Thirteen-year disease-free survival after wide local excision and review of recent literature. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1998: 178; 1177-1184.
19. 19. Cercy SP, Bylsma FW. Lewy bodies and progressive dementia: a critical review and meta-analysis. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 1997: 3; 179-194.
20. 20. Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1995: 141; 680-689.
21. 21. Garg PP, Kerlikowske K, Subak L, Grady D. Hormone replacement therapy and the risk of epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Obstet. Gynecol. 1998: 92; 472-479.
22. 22. Scheidler J, Hricak H, Yu KK, Subak L, Segal MR. Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1997: 278; 1096-1101.
23. 23. Seferovic PM, Maksimovic R, Vasiljevic JD, Marinkovic J, Ostojic M. Kanjuh V et al. Endomyocardial biopsy: a meta-analysis of diagnostic value. Postgrad. Med. J. 1994: 70; S21-S28.
24. 24. Thacker SB, Peterson HB, Stroup DF. Meta-analysis for the obstetrician-gynaecologist. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1996: 174; 1403-1407.
25. 25. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995: 275; 408-412.
26. 26. Peipert JF, Bracken MB. Systematic reviews of medical evidence: the use of meta-analysis in obstetrics and gynaecology. Obstet. Gynecol. 1997: 89; 628-633.
27. 27. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992: 267; 374-378.
28. 28. Easterbrook P, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991: 337; 867-872.
29. 29. Koren G, Shear H, Graham K, Einarson T. Bias against the null hypothesis: the reproductive hazards of cocaine. Lancet 1989: 2; 1440-1442.
30. 30. Newcombe RG. Towards a reduction in publication bias. Br. Med. J. 1987: 295; 656-659.
31. 31. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H, Kuebler RR. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 'negative' trials. New Eng. J. Med. 1978: 299; 690-694.
32. 32. Altman DG. Confidence intervals for the number needed to treat. Br. Med. J. 1998: 317; 1309-1312.
33. 33. Huque MF. Experiences with meta-analysis in NDA submissions. Proc. Biopharm. Sect. Am. Stat. Soc. 1988: 2; 28-33.
34. 34. LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. New Eng. J. Med. 1997: 337; 536-542.
35. 35. Altman DG, Elbourne D. Combining results from several clinical trials. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1988: 95; 1-2.
36. 36. L'Abbe KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann. Int. Med. 1987: 107; 224-233.
37. 37. Oxman AD. Checklists for review articles. Br. Med. J. 1994: 309; 648-651.
38. 38. Heatley MK. What is the value of proliferation markers in the normal and neoplastic cervix? Histol. Histopath. 1998: 13; 249-254.
39. 39. Hannaford PC, Owen-Smith V. Using epidemiological data to guide clinical practice: review of studies on cardiovascular disease and use of combined oral contraceptives. Br. Med. J. 1998: 316; 984-987.
40. 40. Altman DG. Randomisation. Essential for reducing bias. Br. Med. J. 1991: 302; 1481-1482.
41. 41. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. New Eng. J. Med. 1983: 309; 1358-1361.
42. 42. Chalmers TC, Berrier J, Sacks HS, Levin H, Reitman D, Nagalingam R. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline: II. Replicate variability and comparison of studies that agree and disagree. Stat. Med. 1987: 6; 733-744.
43. 43. Datta M. You cannot exclude the explanation you have not considered. Lancet 1993: 342; 345-347.
44. 44. Greenland S. Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature. Epidemiol. Rev. 1987: 9; 1-30.
45. 45. Ankum WM, Mol BWJ, Van Der Veen F, Bossuyt PMM. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 1996; 65; 1093-1099.
46. 46. Davey-Smith G, Egger M. Meta-analyses of observational data should be done with due care. Br. Med. J. 1999: 318; 56.
47. 47. Feinstein AR. Meta-analysis: statistical alchemy for the 21st century. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1995: 48; 71-79.
48. 48. Shapiro S. Meta-analysis/Shmeta-analysis. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1994: 140; 771-778.
49. 49. Spitzer WO. Meta-meta-analysis: Unanswered questions about aggregating data. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1991: 44; 103-107.
50. 50. Booth A. How to search for the evidence. Bull. R. Coll. Pathol. 1998: 103: 44-47.
51. 51. Glanville J, Haines M, Auston I. Finding information on clinical effectiveness. Br. Med. J. 1998: 317; 200-203.
52. 52. Underwood JCE. Editorial. Histopathology 1997: 31; 1-2.
53. 53. McManus RJ, Wilson S, Delaney BC et al. Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews. Br. Med. J. 1998; 317; 1562-1563.
54. 54. Dickersin K, Min YI. Publication bias: the problem that won't go away. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1993: 703; 135-148.
55. 55. Easterbrook P. Reducing publication bias. Br. Med. J. 1987: 295; 1347.
56. 56. Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenherg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1994; 272; 158-162.
57. 57. Chalmers I. Under-reporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 1990a; 263; 1405-1408.
58. 58. Chalmers I, Adams M, Dickersin K et al. A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. JAMA 1990b: 263; 1401-1405.
59. 59. Goldman L, Loscazlo A. Fate of cardiology research originally published in abstract form. N. Eng. J. Med. 1980: 303; 255-259.
60. 60. Simes RJ. Publication bias: The case for an international registry of clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 1986; 4; 1529-1541.
61. 61. Rymer J. Fraud at conferences needs to be addressed. Br. Med. J. 1998: 317; 1591.
62. 62. Bates D. Results of search strategy should be given for readers. Br. Med. J. 1998: 317; 1387.
63. 63. Gillman MW, Runyan DK. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. New Eng. J. Med. 1984: 310; 1610-1611.
64. 64. Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith HJ. Publication bias and clinical trials. Controlled Clin. Trials 1987: 8; 343-353.
65. 65. O'Rourke K, Detsky AS. Second thoughts. Meta-analysis in medical research: strong encouragement for higher quality in individual research efforts. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1989: 42; 1021-1024.
66. 66. Gerbarg ZB, Horwitz RI. Resolving conflicting clinical trials: guidelines for meta-analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1988: 41; 503-509.
67. 67. Liberati A, Himel HN, Chalmers TC. A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 1986: 4; 942-951.
68. 68. Pitkin RM. Masked peer review revisited - editorial. Obstet. Gynecol. 1998: 91; 780.
69. 69. Ellenberg SS. Meta-analysis: the quantitative approach to research review. Semin. Oncol. 1988; 15; 472-481.
70. 70. Thompson SG. Systematic review - why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. Br. Med. J. 1994; 309; 1351-1355.
71. 71. Stewart LA, Clarke MJ. Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Stat. Med. 1995: 14; 2057-2079.
72. 72. Eysenck HJ. Meta-analysis: an abuse of research integration. J. Spec. Educ. 1984: 18; 41-59.