Development of the Veritas plot and its application in cardiac surgery: An evidence-synthesis graphic tool for the clinician to assess multiple meta-analyses reporting on a common outcome

Canadian Journal of Surgery

Volumn 52, Issue 5, 2009, Pages

  Panesar, Sukhmeet S ^a,b   Rao, Christopher ^a   Vecht, Joshua A ^a   Mirza, Saqeb B ^c   Netuveli, Gopalakrishnan ^a   Morris, Richard ^d   Rosenthal, Joe ^d   Darzi, Ara ^a   Athanasiou, Thanos ^a,e  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b NATIONAL PATIENT SAFETY AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL NATIONAL ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HEART SURGERY; HUMAN; MALE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED KINGDOM;

CARDIAC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MALE; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 70350054355     PISSN: 0008428X     EISSN: 14882310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Glass G. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 1976;5:3-8.
2. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1995;274:1800-1804.
3. Jones RS, Richards R. Office of evidence based surgery charts course for improved system of care. Bull Am Coll Surg 2003;88:11-21.
4. Sackett DL. Applying overviews and meta-analyses at the bedside. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:61-66.
5. Eysenck H. An exercise in mega-silliness. Am Psychol 1978;33:517.
6. Petitti D. Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis: methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2000.
7. Berman NG, Parker RA. Meta-analysis: neither quick nor easy. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002;2:10.
8. Ellis J, Mulligan I, Rowe J, et al. Inpatient general medicine is evidence based. A-Team, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine. Lancet 1995;346:407-410.
9. Howes N, Chagla L, Thorpe M, et al. Surgical practice is evidence based. Br J Surg 1997;84:1220-1223.
10. Pollock AV. Surgical evaluation at the crossroads. Br J Surg 1993; 80:964-966.
11. Pollock AV. The rise and fall of the randomized control trial in surgery. Theor Surg 1989;4:163-170.
12. Panesar SS, Thakrar R, Athanasiou T, et al. Comparison of reports of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in surgical journals: literature review. J R Soc Med 2006;99:470-472.
13. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896-1900.
14. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta- analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008-2012.
15. Wachter KW. Disturbed by meta-analysis? Science 1988;241:1407-1408.
16. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E. Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ 2007;335:914-916.
17. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, editors. 9.5.2. Identifying and measuring heterogeneity. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. The Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.0 (updated February 2008). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Most recent update available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
18. Thompson SG, Pocock SJ. Can meta-analyses be trusted? Lancet 1991;338:1127-1130.
19. Rao C. Selection models and the file drawer problem [comment]. Statist Sci 1988;3:131.
20. Comment on: Statist Sci 1988;1:109-117.
21. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA 2006;295:676-680.
22. Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, et al. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ 2000;320:1574-1577.
23. Panesar SS, Athanasiou T, Nair S, et al. Early outcomes in the elderly: a meta-analysis of 4921 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting-comparison between off-pump and on-pump techniques. Heart 2006;92:1808-1816.
24. Cappelleri JC, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH, et al. Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: How do their results compare? JAMA 1996;276:1332-1338.
25. Borzak S, Ridker PM. Discordance between meta-analyses and large-scale randomized, controlled trials. Examples from the management of acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med1 995;123:873-877.
26. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: One answer is not always enough. Lancet 1998;351:123-127.
27. Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, et al. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1992; 327:248-254.
28. Shea B, Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the QUORUM statement compared to other tools. London (UK): BMJ Books; 2001.
29. Oxman AD. Checklists for review articles. BMJ 1994;309:648-651.
30. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.
31. Galbraith R. Some applications of radial plots. J Am Stat Assoc 1994; 89:1232-1234.
32. Saary MJ. Radar plots: a useful way for presenting multivariate health care data. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:311-317.
33. Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, et al. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med 2001;38:518-526.
34. Reston JT, Tregear SJ, Turkelson CM. Meta-analysis of short-term and mid-term outcomes following off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;76:1510-1515.
35. Athanasiou T, Al Ruzzeh S, Kumar P, et al. Off-pump myocardial revascularization is associated with less incidence of stroke in elderly patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77:745-753.
36. Cheng DC, Bainbridge D, Martin JE, et al. Does off-pump coronary artery bypass reduce mortality, morbidity, and resource utilization when compared with conventional coronary artery bypass? A meta- analysis of randomized trials. Anesthesiology 2005;102:188-203.
37. Wijeysundera DN, Beattie WS, Djaiani G, et al. Off-pump coronary artery surgery for reducing mortality and morbidity: meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:872-882.
38. Sedrakyan A, Wu AW, Parashar A, et al. Off-pump surgery is associated with reduced occurrence of stroke and other morbidity as compared with traditional coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of systematically reviewed trials. Stroke 2006;37:2759-2769.
39. Takagi H, Tanabashi T, Kawai N, et al. Off-pump surgery does not reduce stroke, compared with results of on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;134:1059-1060.
40. Mclntyre LA, Fergusson DA, Hebert PC, et al. Prolonged therapeutic hypothermia after traumatic brain injury in adults: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:2992-2999.
41. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ 1997;156:1411-1416.
42. Henderson WR, Dhingra VK, Chittock DR, et al. Hypothermia in the management of traumatic brain injury. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2003;29:1637-1644.
43. Christensen E. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses: the QUOROM statement. Will it help? J Hepatol 2001;34:342-345.
44. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care 2005;9:R575-82.
45. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-634.
46. Furukawa TA, Streiner DL, Hori S. Discrepancies among mega-trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:1193-1199.
47. Villar J, Carroli G, Belizan JM. Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 1995;345:772-776.
48. LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, et al. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1997;337:536-542.
49. Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-analysis. Potentials and promise. BMJ 1997;315:1371-1374.
50. Bailar JC III. The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med 1997;337:559-561.
51. Peto R, Collins R, Gray R. Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:23-40.
52. Puhan MA, ter Riet G, Eichler K, et al. More medical journals should inform their contributors about three key principles of graph construction. J Clin Epidemiol2006;59:1017-1022.
53. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. 1996. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 455:3-5.