Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in surgery;Systematische Übersichtsarbeiten und Metaanalysen in der Chirurgie

Chirurg

Volumn 78, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 938-944

  Diener, M K ^a,b   Seiler, C M ^a   Antes, G ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Knowledge transfer; Meta analysis; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; LITERATURE; MASS COMMUNICATION; META ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; SURGERY;

CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SURGERY;

EID: 35648964222     PISSN: 00094722     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00104-007-1404-7     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Alderson P, Gliddon L, Chalmers I (2003) Academic recognition of critical appraisal and systematic reviews in British postgraduate medical education. Med Educ 37: 386
2. Alderson P, Roberts I (1997) Corticosteroids in acute traumatic brain injury: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 314: 1855-1859
3. Altman DG (1998) Confidence intervals for the number needed to treat. BMJ 317: 1309-1312
4. Antes G, Diener MK (2006) The role of systematic reviews in evidence-based healthcare. Chin J Evid-based Med 6: 467-470
5. Antes G, Sauerland S, Seiler CM (2006) Evidence-based medicine-from best research evidence to a better surgical practice and health care. Langenbecks Arch Surg 391: 61-67
6. Barratt A, Wyer PC, Hatala R et al. (2004) Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 1. Relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat. CMAJ 171: 353-358
7. Boutron I, Moher D, Tugwell P et al. (2005) A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 58: 1233-1240
8. Cook DJ, Greengold NL, Ellrodt AG, Weingarten SR (1997) The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med 127: 210-216
9. Cooper NJ, Jones DR, Sutton AJ (2005) The use of systematic reviews when designing studies. Clin Trials 2: 260-264
10. Diener MK, Blumle A, Szakallas V et al. (2006) [Randomized and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials in a German surgical journal.]. Chirurg 77: 837-843
11. Diener MK, Heukaufer C, Seiler CM et al. (2006) Pancreaticoduodenectomy (classical Whipple) versus pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (pp Whipple) for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma (Protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev
12. Diener MK, Knaebel HP, Heukaufer C et al. (2007) A systematic review and meta-analysis of pylorus-preserving versus classical pancreaticoduodenectomy for surgical treatment of periampullary and pancreatic carcinoma. Ann Surg (in press)
13. Diener MK, Knaebel HP, Witte St et al. and the DISPACT Trial Group (2007) DISPACT: A randomized controlled trial to compare two different surgical techniques of DIStal PAnCreaTectomy - Study rationale and design [ISRCTN18452029]. Clin Trials (in press)
14. Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F et al. (2005) Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann Surg 241: 450-459
15. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. BMJ Publishing Group, London
16. Fergusson D, Glass KC, Hutton B, Shapiro S (2005) Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: Could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clin Trials 2: 218-229
17. Friedman LM, Furberg CD, DeMets DL (1998) Fundamentals of clinical trials. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
18. Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G (2003) Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine - how to review and apply findings of healthcare research. Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd, London
19. Knaebel HP, Diener MK, Wente MN et al. (2005) Systematic review and meta-analysis of technique for closure of the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg 92: 539-546
20. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M et al. (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324: 1448-1451
21. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S et al. (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354: 1896-1900
22. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357: 1191-1194
23. Mulrow CD (1994) Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 309: 597-599
24. Sauerland S, Seiler CM (2005) Role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based medicine. World J Surg 29: 582-587
25. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273: 408-412
26. Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P (2005) Evidence-Base Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone, London
27. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283: 2008-2012
28. Thoma A, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M, Tandan V (2004) Users' guide to the surgical literature. How to assess a randomized controlled trial in surgery. Can J Surg 47: 200-208
29. Turp JC, Schulte JM, Antes G (2002) Nearly half of dental randomized controlled trials published in German are not included in Medline. Eur J Oral Sci 110: 405-411
30. Urschel JD, Goldsmith CH, Tandan VR, Miller JD (2001) Users' guide to evidence-based surgery: how to use an article evaluating surgical interventions. Evidence-Based Surgery Working Group. Can J Surg 44: 95-100
31. Young C, Horton R (2005) Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 366: 107-108