Systematic reviews in epidemiology: Why are we so far behind?

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 6-12

  Dickersin, Kay ^a  

^a Department of Community Health   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EPIDEMIOLOGY; METHODOLOGY;

ACCURACY; ANALYTICAL ERROR; BIOMEDICINE; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

EID: 0036208310     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/31.1.6     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Quality of reviews in epidemiology
2. The medical review article: State of the science
3. Materials and methods used in synthesizing evidence to evaluate the effects of care during pregnancy and childbirth
4. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials
5. The Cochrane Collaboration: Evaluation of health care and services using systematic reviews of the results of randomized controlled trials
6. Development of a centralized register of controlled clinical trials: The Cochrane Collaboration's CENTRAL Database
7. Better access to information about clinical trials
8. Registering clinical trials
9. Clinical trials watch
10. Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: Collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies of 52 705 women with breast cancer and 108 411 women without breast cancer
11. Findings for public health from meta-analyses
12. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting
13. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies
14. Meta-analysis/Shmeta-analysis
15. Of babies and bathwater
16. Commentary on meta-analysis
17. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: Myths and misconceptions
18. Human Genome Epidemiologic reviews: The beginning of something HuGE
19. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis
20. Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trials
21. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions
22. Reporting observational studies
23. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement
24. A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles
25. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards
26. Publication bias in clinical research
27. Publication bias: Evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects
28. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German
29. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: Implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews
30. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?
31. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?
32. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language
33. Non-English reports of medical research
34. Perusing the literature: Comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal trials database. 6
35. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews
36. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE
37. How many hand-searchers does it take to change a light-bulb-or to find all of the randomised trials?
38. Poorly executed and inadequately documented? An analysis of the literature searches on which systematic reviews are based
39. Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews
40. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?
41. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses?
42. Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts. (Cochrane Methodology Review.)
43. Agreement of data in abstracts compared to full publications
44. Inadequate reporting of controlled trials as short reports
45. Reporting of randomized clinical trial descriptors and use of structured abstracts
46. Homocyst(e)ine and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review of the evidence with special emphasis on case-control studies and nested case-control studies
47. Controversy of oral contraceptives and risk of rheumatoid arthritis: Meta-analysis of conflicting studies and review of conflicting meta-analysis with special emphasis on analysis of heterogeneity
48. Asbestos exposure and gastrointestinal malignancy review and meta-analysis
49. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis
50. Lung cancer and passive smoking: Reconciling the biochemical and epidemiological approaches
51. Oral contraceptives and cardiovascular disease: A critique of the epidemiologic studies
52. A meta-analysis of alcohol consumption in relation to risk of breast cancer
53. A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials
54. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: An empirical study of 125 meta-analyses
55. Meta-analysis and evidence
56. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials
57. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?
58. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data
59. Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting
60. Data on file cited in pharmaceutical advertisements: What are they?
61. Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: Is there a difference?
62. Comparison of effect estimates from a meta-analysis of summary data from published studies and from a meta-analysis using individual patient data for ovarian cancer studies
63. Searching for the Evidence: Source, Time, and Yield
64. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews
65. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. II: Replicate variability and comparison of studies that agree and disagree
66. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial
67. Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts
68. Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data
69. The quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials published in Ophthalmology
70. Influence of methodologic factors in a pooled analysis of 13 case-control studies of colorectal cancer and dietary fiber
71. Meta-analysis of epidemiologic dose-response data
72. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints
73. Why sources heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated
74. Advantages and limitations of metaanalytic regressions of clinical trials data
75. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies
76. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests
77. An empirical investigation of exposure measurement bias and its components in case-control studies