Pitfalls in systematic reviews

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 433-439

  Farquhar, Cynthia ^a   Vail, Andy ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidenced based medicine; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA EXTRACTION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FUNDING; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; REVIEW LITERATURE;

EID: 33745675944     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.gco.0000233939.44178.4b     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Muir Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312:71-72.
2. Straus SE, Jones G. What has evidence based medicine done for us? BMJ 2004; 329:987-988.
3. Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8:iii-iii; 1-72.
4. Bethell C, Reuland CH, Halfon N, Schor EL. Measuring the quality of preventive and developmental services for young children: national estimates and patterns of clinicians' performance. Paediatrics 2004; 113:1973-1983.
5. Sackett DL, Haynes B. On the need for evidence based medicine. Evidence Based Med 1995; 1:4-5.
6. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994; 307:597-599.
7. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, et al. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts: treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992; 268:240-248.
8. Oxman AD, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. I: How to get started. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1993; 270:2093-2095.
9. Sacks HS, Chalmers TC, Smith HJ. Randomisation versus historical assignment in controlled clinical trials. Am Med J 1993; 309:1353-1361.
10. L'Abbe KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107:224-233.
11. Thacker SB. Meta-analysis: a quantitative approach to research integration. JAMA 1988; 259:1685-1689.
12. Chalmers I. The Cochrane Collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993; 703:156-165.
13. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5 [updated May 2005]. The Cochrane Library 2005; (3). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. An excellent and comprehensive resource for those who wish to undertake a systematic review. It can be found on the opening website of the Cochrane Library.
14. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic review. In: Chalmers I, Altman DG, editors. Systematic reviews. London: British Medical Journal Publishing Group.
15. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999; 282:1054-1060.
16. Moher D, Jadad A, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995; 16:62-73.
17. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA 1994; 272:125-128.
18. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135:982-989.
19. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in healthcare: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323:42-46.
20. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326:1167-1170.
21. Kemmeren JM, Algra A, Grobbee DE. Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thrombosis: meta-analysis. BMJ 2001; 323:119-120.
22. Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, et al. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1987; 8:343-353.
23. Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4:1529-1541.
24. Simes RJ. Confronting publication bias: a cohort design for meta-analysis. Stat Med 1987; 6:11-29.
25. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 1990; 206:1385-1389.
26. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 1990; 263:1405-1408.
27. Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev 1997; 9 (Suppl A):15-21.
28. Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, et al. Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess 2000; 4:1-115.
29. Williamson PR, Gamble C. Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2005; 24:1547-1561. A review of outcome selection bias suggesting that both publication bias and selective reporting should be routinely investigated in systematic reviews.
30. Chan A, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 2005; 330:753. A review of literature on the incomplete reporting of outcomes within published articles of randomized trials is common and is associated with statistical non-significance. The authors conclude that medical literature represents a selective and biased subset of study outcomes, and therefore trial protocols should be made publicly available.
31. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002; 288:321-333.
32. Colditz GA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, et al. Menopause and the risk of coronary heart disease in women. N Engl J Med 1987; 316:1105-1110.
33. Vail A, Gardner E. Common statistical errors in the design and analysis of subfertility trials. Hum Reprod 2003; 18:1000-1004.
34. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327:557-560.
35. Deeks JJ. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 2002; 21:1575-1600.
36. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 1995; 310:452-454.
37. Walter SD. Choice of effect measure for epidemiological data. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53:931-939.
38. Altman DG, Bland JM. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 1995; 311:485.
39. Alderson P, Chalmers I. Survey of claims of no effect in abstracts of Cochrane Reviews. BMJ 2003; 326:475.
40. Seif MW, Edi-Osagie ECO, Farquhar Hooper C, et al. Assisted hatching on assisted conception (IVF & ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; (1): CD001894. A systematic review of assisted hatching showing benefit for clinical pregnancy rate but not for livebirth rate because few authors report live birth rate.