Digesting scientific information: Pros and cons of systematic reviews and meta-analysis;Digiriendo la información científica. Excelencias y limitaciones de las revisiones sistemáticas y metanálisis

Acta Pediatrica Espanola

Volumn 62, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 4-10

  Balaguer Santamaria A ^a,c   Gonzalez De Dios J ^b  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARI SANT JOAN DE REUS   (Spain)

^b MIGUEL HERNÁNDEZ UNIVERSITY   (Spain)

^c NONE   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Evidence based medicine; Meta analysis; Quality of health care; Review literature

Indexed keywords

EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; REVIEW;

EID: 1542286640     PISSN: 00016640     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. a ed. Filadelfia: Que, 2000; 27-29.
2. González de Dios J. Búsqueda de información en pediatría basada en la evidencia (I-II): «Infoxicació n» e Internet. Fuentes de información secundaria y primaria. Rev Esp Pediatr 2003; 59: 246-273.
3. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106 (3): 485-488.
4. López Arrieta JM, Qizilbash N. La medicina basada en pruebas: revisiones sistemáticas. La Colaboración Cochrane. Med Clin (Barc) 1996; 107: 581-585.
5. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994; 272 (17): 1.367-1.371.
6. Straus, Sharon E, McAlister, Finlay A. Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on common criticisms. CMAJ 2000; 163 (7): 837-841.
7. Sackett DL. Second thoughts. Proposals for the health sciences. I. Compulsory retirement for experts. J Chronic Dis 1983; 36 (7): 545-547.
8. Sackett DL. The sins of expertness and a proposal for redemption. BMJ 2000; 320 (7244): 1.283.
9. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Fitzgerald D, Guyatt GH, Walker CJ, Sackett DL. How to keep up with the medical literature: IV. Using the literature to solve clinical problems. Ann Intern Med 1986; 105 (4): 636-640.
10. McAlister FA, Clark HD, Van Walraven C, Straus SE, Lawson FM, Moher D, Mulrow CD. The medical review revisited: has the science improved? Ann Intern Med 1999; 268 (3): 240-248.
11. Ohlsson A. Randomized controlled trials and systematic revies: a foundation for evidence-based perinatal medicine. Acta Pediatr 1996; 85: 647-655.
12. Sinclair JC, Bracken MB, Horbar JD, Soll RF. Introduction to neonatal systematic reviews. Pediatrics 1997; 100: 892-895.
13. González de Dios J. Las mejores evidencias (o pruebas) científicas (II): la revisión sistemática. Rev Esp Pediatr 1999; 55 (3): 250-256.
14. Cook DJ, Mulrow C, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 376-380.
15. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48 (1): 167-171.
16. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berck VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 450-455.
17. L'Abbé KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107: 224-233.
18. Fernández-Ballart JD, Vobecky J, Marti-Henneberg C. Meta-analysis: the synthesis and integration of the results of independent studies in medicine. Med Clin (Barc) 1991; 96 (10): 382-387.
19. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Goldberg RJ. Clinical recommendations using levels of evidence for antithrombotic agents. Chest 1995; 108 (4 supl): 227S-230S.
20. Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, De Vet HC, Van Der Windt DA, Bezemer P. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002; 2 (1): 9.
21. Irwig L, Tosteson ANA, Gatsonis C y cols. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120: 667-676.
22. Mosteller F, Colditz GA. Understanding research synthesis (meta-analysis). Annu Rev Public Health 1996; 17: 1-23.
23. Walter SD, Irwig L, Glasziou PP. Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with imperfect reference standards. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52 (10): 943-951.
24. González de Dios J. Las mejores evidencias (o pruebas) científicas (III): el metanálisis. Rev Esp Pediatr 1999; 55 (4): 368-376.
25. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1995 13; 274 (22): 1.800-1.804.
26. Cook DJ, Greengold NL, EUrodt AG, Weingarten SR. The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127 (3): 210-216.
27. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I y cols. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276 (8): 637-639.
28. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet 2001; 357: 1.191-1.194.
29. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S y cols. for the QUOROM Group. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999; 354: 1.896-1.900.
30. Thornton A, Lee P. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53 (2): 207-216.
31. Montori VM, Smieja M, Guyatt GH. Publication bias: a brief review for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc 2000; 75 (12): 1.284-1.288.
32. Delgado-Rodríguez M, Sillero-Arenas M. Sesgos en metanálisis. Med Clin (Barc) 1999; 112 supl 1: 43-50.
33. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629-634.
34. LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1997; 337 (8): 536-542.
35. Furukawa TA, Streiner DL, Hori S. Discrepancies among megatrials. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53 (12): 1.193-1.199.
36. Charlton BG. Fundamental de deficiencies in the megatrial methodology. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2001; 2 (1): 2-7.
37. Petticrew M. Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions. BMJ 2003; 326 (7.392):. 756-758.
38. Shannon S. Critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Can Assoc Radiol J 2002; 53 (4): 195-198.
39. Laupacis A, Wells G, Richardson WS, Tugwell P. Users' guides to the medical literature. V. How to use an article about prognosis. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994; 272 (3): 234-237.
40. Levine M, Walter S, Lee H, Haines T, Holbrook A, Moyer V. Users' guides to the medical literature. IV. How to use an article about harm. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994; 27: 1.615-1.619.
41. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994; 271 (9): 703-707.
42. 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 Jan 5; 271 (1): 59-63.
43. Tonelli MR. In defense of expert opinion. Acad Med 1999; 74 (11): 1.187-1.192.