Focus on research methods. Research methods: Managing primary study quality in meta-analyses

Research in Nursing and Health

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 322-333

  Conn, Vicki S ^a,b   Rantz, Marilyn J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b S317 School of Nursing MU   (United States)

Author keywords

Meta analysis; Research methods

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; DATA ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; NURSING; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZATION; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; NURSING RESEARCH;

META-ANALYSIS; NURSING RESEARCH;

EID: 0041349299     PISSN: 01606891     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nur.10092     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Assendelft, W., Koes, B., Knipschild, P., & Bouter, L. (1995). The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation. JAMA, 274, 1942-1948.
2. Balk, E., Bonis, P., Moskowitz, H., Schmid, C., Ioannidis, J., Wang, C., et al. (2002). Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA, 287, 2973-2982.
3. Beck, C. (1999). Facilitating the work of a meta-analyst. Research in Nursing & Health, 22, 523-530.
4. Brown, S. (1992). Meta-analysis of diabetes patient education research: Variations in intervention effects across studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 15, 409-419.
5. Chalmers, T., Celano, P., Sacks, H., & Smith, H. (1983). Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 309, 1358-1361.
6. Chalmers, T., Smith, H., Blackburn, B., Silverman, B., Schroeder, B., Reitman, D., et al. (1981). A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Controlled Clinical Trials, 2, 31-49.
7. Colditz, G., Miller, J., & Mosteller, F. (1989). How study design affects outcomes in comparison of therapy. Medical Statistics in Medicine, 8, 441-454.
8. Conn, V., & Armer, J. (1996). Meta-analysis and public policy: Opportunity for nursing impact. Nursing Outlook, 44, 267-271.
9. Conn, V., Valentine, J., & Cooper, H. (2002). Interventions to increase physical activity among aging adults: A meta-analysis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 190-200.
10. Conn, V., Valentine, J., Cooper, H., & Rantz, M. (In press). Should grey literature be included in meta-analysis? Nursing Research.
11. Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
12. Cooper, H. (1986). On the social psychology of using research reviews: The case of desegregation and black achievement. In R. Feldman (Ed.), The social psychology of education (pp. 341-363). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Detsky, A., Naylor, C., O'Rourke, K., McGeer, A., & L'Abbe, K. (1992). Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 45, 255-265.
15. de Vet, H., de Bie, R., van der Heijden, G., Verhagen, A., Sijpkes, P., & Kipschild, P. (1997). Systematic review on the basis of methodological criteria. Physiotherapy, 1997, 284-289.
16. Downs, S., & Black, N. (1998). The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 52, 377-384.
17. Emerson, J., Burdick, E., Hoaglin, D., Mosteller, F., & Chalmers, T. (1990). An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 11, 339-352.
18. Fergusson, D., Laupacis, A., Salmi, L., McAlister, F., & Huet, C. (2000). What should be included in meta-analyses? An exploration of methodological issues using the ISPOT meta-analyses. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 16, 1109-1119.
19. Greenland, S. (1994). Invited commentary: A critical look at some population meta-analytic methods. American Journal of Epidemiology, 140, 290-296.
20. Jadad, A., Moore, R., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D., Gavaghan, D., et al. (1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials, 17, 1-12.
21. Juni, P., Altman, D., & Egger, M. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 323, 42-46.
22. Juni, P., Witschi, A., Bloch, R., & Egger, M. (1999). The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1054-1060.
23. Khan, K., Daya, S., & Jadad, A. (1996). The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews. Archives of Internal Medicine, 156, 661-666.
24. Kjaergard, L., Villumsen, J., & Gluud, C. (2001). Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Annals of Internal Medicine, 135, 982-989.
25. Kunz, R., Neumayer, H., & Khan, K. (2002). When small degrees of bias in randomized trials can mislead clinical decisions: An example of individualizing preventive treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Critical Care Medicine, 30, 1503-1507.
26. Kunz, R., & Oxman, A. (1998). The unpredictability paradox: Review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 317, 1185-1190.
27. Liberati, A., Himel, H., & Chalmers, T. (1986). A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 4, 942-951.
28. Linde, K., Scholz, M., Ramirez, G., Clausius, N., Melchart, D., & Jonas, W.B. (1999). Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52, 631-636.
29. Lohr, K., & Carey, T. (1999). Assessing "best evidence": Issues in grading the quality of studies for systematic reviews. Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 25, 470-479.
30. McNutt, R., Evans, A., Fletcher, R., & Fletcher, S. (1990). The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA, 263, 1371-1376.
31. Moher, D., Cook, D., Jadad, A., Tugwell, P., Moher, M., Jones, A., et al. (1999). Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: Implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technology Assessment, 3(12), 1-98.
32. Moher, D., Jadad, A., Nichol, G., Penman, M., Tugwell, P., & Walsh, S. (1995). Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clinical Trials, 16, 62-73.
33. Moher, D., Jadad, A., & Tugwell, P. (1996). Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12, 195-208.
34. Moher, D., & Olkin, I. (1995). Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A concern for standards. JAMA, 274, 1962-1964.
35. Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., Cook, D., Jadad, A., Moher, M., et al. (1998). Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet, 352, 609-613.
36. Moher, D., Schulz, K., & Altman, D. (2001). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA, 285, 1987-1991.
37. Morley, S., Eccleston, C., & Williams, A. (1999). Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of cognitive behaviour therapy and behaviour therapy for chronic pain in adults, excluding headache. Pain, 80, 1-13.
38. Ortiz, Z., Shea, B., Suarez-Almazor, M., Moher, D., Wells, G., & Tugwell, P. (1998). The efficacy of folic acid and folinic acid in reducing methotrexate gastrointestinal toxicity in rheumatoid arthritis. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Rheumatology, 25, 36-43.
39. Oxman, A. (1994). Checklists for review articles. British Medical Journal, 309, 648-651.
40. Petersen, M., & White, D. (1989). An information synthesis approach to reviewing literature. In M. Petersen & D. White (Eds.), Health care of the elderly: An information sourcebook (pp. 26-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41. Saunders, L., Soomro, G., Buckingham, J., Jamtvedt, G., & Raina, P. (2003). Assessing the methodological quality of nonrandomized intervention studies. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25, 223-237.
42. Schulz, K., Chalmers, I., & Altman, D. (2002). The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 136, 254-259.
43. Schulz, K., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R., & Altman, D. (1995). Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment. JAMA, 273, 408-412.
44. Sharpe, D. (1997). Of apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: Why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 881-901.
45. Sindhu, F., Carpenter, L., & Seers, K. (1997). Development of a tool to rate the quality assessment of randomized controlled trials using a Delphi technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 1262-1268.
46. Sterne, J., Juni, P., Schulz, K., Altman, D., Bartlett, C., & Egger, M. (2002). Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in "meta-epidemiological" research. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1513-1524.
47. Tritchler, D. (1999). Modelling study quality in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 18, 2135-2145.
48. University of Maryland (2003). Meta-analysis of research studies. Retrieved May 13, 2003, from http://ericae.net/meta.
49. van der Heijden, G., van der Windt, D., Kleijnen, J., Koes, B., & Bouter, L. (1996). Steroid injections for shoulder disorders: A systematic review of RCTs. British Journal of General Practice, 46, 309-316.
50. Valentine, J., & Cooper, H. (2003). What Works Clearinghouse Study Design and Implementation. Assessment Device (version 0.6). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http:// www.w-w-c.org.
51. Vickers, A., & Smith, C. (2000). Incorporating data from dissertations in systematic reviews. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 16, 711-713.
52. West, S., King, V., Carey, T., Lohr, K., McKoy, N., Sutton, S., et al. (2002). Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47 AHRQ (Publication No. 02-E016). [Prepared by Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-Based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011.] Rockville, MD: Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality.
53. Wortman, P.M. (1994). Judging research quality. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 97-109). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.