Systematic reviews: A primer for plastic surgery research

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 120, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 1834-1841

  Margaliot, Zvi ^a   Chung, Kevin C ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CITATION ANALYSIS; COCHRANE LIBRARY; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DATA EXTRACTION; DATA SYNTHESIS; EMBASE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; PLASTIC SURGERY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VALIDITY;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIBLIOMETRICS; DATA COLLECTION; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; MEDLINE; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SURGERY, PLASTIC; WRITING;

EID: 37349073780     PISSN: 00321052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000295984.24890.2f     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., and Stroup, D. F. Improving the quality of reports of metaanalyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement - Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 354: 1896, 1999.
2. Young, C., and Horton, R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 366: 107, 2005.
3. Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., and Haynes, R. B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann. Intern. Med. 126: 376, 1997.
4. Mulrow, C. D. The medical review article: State of the science. Ann. Intern. Med. 106: 485, 1987.
5. Bhandari, M., Guyatt, G. H., Montori, V., Devereaux, P. J., and Swiontkowski, M. F. User's guide to the orthopedic literature: How to use a systematic literature review. J. Bone Joint Surg. (Am.) 84: 1672, 2002.
6. Egger, M., Smith, G. D., and O'Rourke, K. Rationale, potentials, and promise of systematic reviews. In M. Egger, G. D. Smith, and D. G. Altman (Eds.), Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context, 2nd Ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001.
7. Harbour, R., and Miller, J. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence-based guidelines. B.M.J. 323: 334, 2001.
8. Mann, J. J., Apter, A., Bertolote, J., et al. Suicide prevention strategies: A systematic review. J.A.M.A. 294: 2064, 2005.
9. Patsopoulos, N. A., Analatos, A. A., and Ioannidis, J. P. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. J.A.M.A. 293: 2362, 2005.
10. Fergusson, D., Glass, K. C., Hutton, B., and Shapiro, S. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: Could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clin. Trials 2: 218, 2005.
11. Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., and Antes, G. Systematic Reviews to Support Evidence-Based Medicine. London: The Royal Society of Medicine Press, 2003.
12. Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. J.A.M.A. 283: 2008, 2000.
13. Egger, M., Schneider, M., and Davey, S. G. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. B.M.J. 316: 140, 1998.
14. Dickersin, K. Systematic reviews in epidemiology: Why are we so far behind? Int. J. Epidemiol. 31: 6, 2002.
15. Fact Sheet MEDLINE. Available at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/ medline.html. Accessed May 16, 2005.
16. STN Database Summary Sheet EMBASE. Available at http://www.cas.org/ ONLINE/DBSS/embasess.html. Accessed May 16, 2005.
17. About Cochrane. Available at http://www.cochrane.us/faq.htm. Accessed May 17, 2005.
18. Scherer, R. W., Dickersin, K., and Langenberg, P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts: A meta-analysis J.A.M.A. 272: 158, 1994.
19. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context, 2nd Ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001.
20. Dickersin, K., Scherer, R., and Lefebvre, C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. B.M.J. 309: 1286, 1994.
21. Akobeng, A. K. Understanding randomised controlled trials Arch. Dis. Child. 90: 840, 2005.
22. Montori, V., and Guyatt, G. Summarizing the evidence: Publication bias. In R. Hayward (Ed.), User's Guides Interactive. Chicago: JAMA Publishing Group, 2002.
23. Dickersin, K., and Min, Y. I. Publication bias: The problem that won't go away. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 703: 135, 1993.
24. Easterbrook, P. J., Berlin, J. A., Gopalan, R., and Matthews, D. R. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337: 867, 1991.
25. Deangelis, C. D., Drazen, J. M., Frizelle, F. A., et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. J.A.M.A. 293: 2927, 2005.
26. Egger, M., and Smith, G. D. Bias in location and selection of studies. B.M.J. 316: 61, 1998.
27. Moher, D., Fortin, P., Jadad, A. R., et al. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: Implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet 347: 363, 1996.
28. Moher, D., Pham, B., Klassen, T. P., et al. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 53: 964, 2000.
29. Margaliot, Z., Haase, S. C., Kotsis, S. V., Kim, H. M., and Chung, K. C. A meta-analysis of outcomes of external fixation versus plate osteosynthesis for unstable distal radius fractures. J. Hand Surg. (Am.) 30: 1185, 2005.
30. Atkins, D., Eccles, M., Flottorp, S., et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches. The GRADE Working Group. B.M.C. Health Serv. Res. 4: 38, 2004.
31. Jadad, A. R., Moher, D., and Klassen, T. P. Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: II. How did the authors find the studies and assess their quality? Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 152: 812, 1998.
32. Berlin, J. A., and Rennie, D. Measuring the quality of trials: The quality of quality scales. J.A.M.A. 282: 1083, 1999.
33. Juni, P., Witschi, A., Bloch, R., and Egger, M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis: The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. J.A.M.A. 282: 1054, 1999.
34. Normand, S. L. Meta-analysis: Formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting. Stat. Med. 18: 321, 1999.
35. Berlin, J. A. Commentary: Summary statistics of poor quality studies must be treated cautiously. B.M.J. 314: 337, 1997.
36. Berman, N. G., and Parker, R. A. Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy. B.M.C. Med. Res. Methodol. 2: 10, 2002.
37. Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., and Bradburn, M. J. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In M. Egger, G. D. Smith, and D. G. Altman (Eds.), Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context, 2nd Ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001.
38. Sutton, A. J., Abrams, K. R., and Jones, D. R. An illustrated guide to the methods of meta-analysis. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 7: 135, 2001.
39. Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., and Stroup, D. F. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. QUOROM Group. Br. J. Surg. 87: 1448, 2000.