Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group

Spine

Volumn 28, Issue 12, 2003, Pages 1290-1299

  Van Tulder, Maurits ^a,b,f   Furlan, Andrea ^b   Bombardier, Claire ^b,c,d,e   Bouter, Lex ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b TORONTO GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^e VU University Medical Centre ^*  (Canada)

^f VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Back pain; Cochrane Collaboration; Meta analysis; Method guidelines; Neck pain; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

BACKACHE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; DATA ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; NECK PAIN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; WORKSHOP;

BACK PAIN; COMPLIANCE; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES; META-ANALYSIS; NECK PAIN; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS; REVIEW LITERATURE;

EID: 0037938708     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200306150-00014     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896-900.
2. Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, Knipschild PG, et al. The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation. JAMA 1995;274:1942-8.
3. Furlan AD, Clarke J, Esmail R, et al. A critical review of reviews on the treatment of chronic low back pain. Spine 2001;26:E155-E162.
4. van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, et al. Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders. Spine 1997;22:2323-30.
5. Bombardier C, Esmail R, Nachemson AL. The Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for spinal disorders. Spine 1997;22:837-40.
6. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:1286-91.
7. Minozzi S, Pistotti V, Forni M. Searching for rehabilitation articles on MED-LINE and EMBASE. An example with cross-over design. Arch Phys Med Rebabil 2000;91:720-2.
8. Woods D, Trewheellar K. MEDLINE and EMBASE complement each other in literature searches. BMJ 1998;316:1166.
9. Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, et al. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:476-87.
10. Robinson KA, Dickersin K. Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:150-3.
11. Dickersin K, Manheimer E, Wieland S, et al. Development of the Cochrane Collaboration's CENTRAL Register of controlled clinical trials. Eval Healtb Prof 2002;25:38-64.
12. Avenell A, Handoll HH, Grant AM. Lessons for search strategies from a systematic review, in The Cochrane Library, of nutritional supplementation trials in patients after hip fracture. Am J Clin Nutr 2001;73:505-10.
13. Clarke M, Oxman AD. Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.1.5 [updated April 2002]. Oxford: Update Software. Updated quarterly, 2002.
14. Egger M, Ebrahim S, Smith GD. Where now for meta-analysis? Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:1-5.
15. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, et al. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997;350:326-9.
16. Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:159-63.
17. Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, et al. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:115-23.
18. Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, et al. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:964-72.
19. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, et al. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1983;309:1358-61.
20. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. Medical Stat Med 1989;8:441-54.
21. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998;317:1185-90.
22. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
23. Jadad AR, Moore A, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17:1-12.
24. Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? Lancet 1997;350:185-6.
25. Verhagen AP, de Vet HCW, de Bie RA, et al. Balneotherapy and quality assessment: interobserver reliability of the Maastricht criteria list and the need for blinded quality assessment. Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:335-41.
26. Hill CL, LaValley MP, Felson DT. Discrepancy between published report and actual conduct of randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:783-6.
27. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, et al. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054-60.
28. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, et al. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:255-65.
29. L'Abbé KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med 1987;107:224-33.
30. Verhagen AP, de Vet HCW, de Bie RA, et al. The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:651-4.
31. Normand ST. Tutorial in biostatistics. Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting. Stat Med 1999;18:321-59.
32. Whitehead A, Whitehead J. A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1991;10:1665-77.
33. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Davey Smith G. Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 2001;323:101-5.
34. Tang JL, Liu JLY. Misleading funnel plots for detection of bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:477-84.
35. Sterne JAC, Gavaghan DJ, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:1119-29.
36. Engels EA, Schmid CH, Terrin N, et al. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med 2000;19:1707-28.
37. Poole C, Greenland S. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:469-75.
38. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:167-71.
39. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:78-84.
40. Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, et al. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA 1991; 266:93-8.
41. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994;271:59-63.
42. Shekelle PG, Andersson G, Bombardier C, et al. A brief introduction to the critical reading of the clinical literature. Spine 1994;19:2028S-31S.
43. Guzman J, Guzman J, Karjalainen K, et al. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review. BMJ 2001;322:1511-6.
44. Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, van Tulder M, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain in working-age adults: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine 2001;26:262-9.
45. Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Ostelo R, Burton KA, Waddell G. Clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care: an international comparison. Spine 2001;26:2504-13.