Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology - A systematic review

Cancer Treatment Reviews

Volumn 35, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 645-652

  Lundh, Andreas ^a   Knijnenburg, Sebastiaan L ^a   Jørgensen, Anders W ^b   van Dalen, Elvira C ^a   Kremer, Leontien C M ^a  

^a EMMA CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Methodological quality; Pediatric oncology; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

CANCER RESEARCH; CHILDHOOD CANCER; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; METHODOLOGY; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VALIDATION PROCESS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIBLIOMETRICS; CHILD; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; JOURNALISM, MEDICAL; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PEDIATRICS; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 70449705856     PISSN: 03057372     EISSN: 15321967     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.010     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Magnani C., Pastore G., Coebergh J.W., Viscomi S., Spix C., and Steliarova-Foucher E. Trends in survival after childhood cancer in Europe, 1978-1997: report from the Automated Childhood Cancer Information System project (ACCIS). Eur J Cancer 42 (2006) 1981-2005
2. Levi F., La Vecchia C., Negri E., and Lucchini F. Childhood cancer mortality in Europe, 1955-1995. Eur J Cancer 37 (2001) 785-809
3. Erratum in:. Levi F., La Vecchia C., Negri E., and Lucchini F. Childhood cancer mortality in Europe, 1955-1995. Eur J Cancer 37 (2001) 2289
4. Levi F., La Vecchia C., Negri E., and Lucchini F. Childhood cancer mortality in Europe, 1955-1995. Eur J Cancer 37 (2001) 1727
5. Gatta G., Capocaccia R., Coleman M.P., Ries L.A., and Berrino F. Childhood cancer survival in Europe and the United States. Cancer 95 (2002) 1767-1772
6. Caldwell P.H., Murphy S.B., Butow P.N., and Craig J.C. Clinical trials in children. Lancet 364 (2004) 803-811
7. Mulrow C.D. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 106 (1987) 485-488
8. Antman E.M., Lau J., Kupelnick B., Mosteller F., and Chalmers T.C. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 268 (1992) 240-248
9. Cook D.J., Sackett D.L., and Spitzer W.O. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48 (1995) 167-171
10. Green S, Higgins JPT, Alderson P, Clarke M, Mulrow CD, Oxman AD. Chapter 1: Introduction. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.0.0 (updated February 2008). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. [accessed 13.05.09].
11. Mulrow C.D. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 309 (1994) 597-599
12. Moher D., Tetzlaff J., Tricco A.C., Sampson M., and Altman D.G. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4 (2007) e78
13. Jadad A.R., and McQuay H.J. Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology. J Clin Epidemiol 49 (1996) 235-243
14. Choi P.T., Halpern S.H., Malik N., Jadad A.R., Tramèr M.R., and Walder B. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg 92 (2001) 700-709
15. Moher D., Soeken K., Sampson M., Ben-Porat L., and Berman B. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr 2 (2002) 3
16. Shojania K.G., and Bero L.A. Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. Eff Clin Pract 4 (2001) 157-162
17. Oxman A.D., Guyatt G.H., Singer J., et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 44 (1991) 91-98
18. Oxman A.D., and Guyatt G.H. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 44 (1991) 1271-1278
19. Landis J.R., and Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 (1977) 159-174
20. McGraw K.O., and Wong S.P. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlations. Psychol Methods 1 (1996) 30-46
21. Riley R.D., Burchill S.A., Abrams K.R., et al. A systematic review and evaluation of the use of tumour markers in paediatric oncology: Ewing's sarcoma and neuroblastoma. Health Technol Assess 7 (2003) 1-162
22. Johnson P.W., Simnett S.J., Sweetenham J.W., Morgan G.J., and Stewart L.A. Bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for malignancy. Health Technol Assess 2 (1998) 1-187
23. Atkins D., Best D., Briss P.A., et al., GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence, strength of recommendations. BMJ 328 (2004) 1490
24. Dickersin K., Scherer R., and Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 309 (1994) 1286-1291
25. Suarez-Almazor M.E., Belseck E., Homik J., Dorgan M., and Ramos-Remus C. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials 21 (2000) 476-487
26. Greenhalgh T., and Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 331 (2005) 1064-1065
27. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2. Art No.: MR000005. Doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3.
28. Dwan K., Altman D.G., Arnaiz J.A., et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias, outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 3 (2008) e3081
29. van Dalen E.C., and Kremer L.C.M. Tips and tricks for understanding and using SR results-no. 4: inclusion of studies into a Cochrane review. Evidence-Based Child Health 1 (2006) 1349-1351
30. Jüni P., Holenstein F., Sterne J., Bartlett C., and Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 31 (2002) 115-123
31. Egger M., Zellweger Z., Schneider M., Junker C., Lengeler C., and Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 350 (1997) 326-329
32. Moher D., Pham B., Lawson M.L., and Klassen T.P. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess 7 (2003) 1-90
33. Oxman A.D., and Guyatt G.H. The science of reviewing research. Ann NY Acad Sci 703 (1993) 125-133
34. Edwards P., Clarke M., DiGuiseppi C., Pratap S., Roberts I., and Wentz R. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med 21 (2002) 1635-1640
35. Egger M., Smith G.D., and Sterne J.A. Uses and abuses of meta-analysis. Clin Med 1 (2001) 478-484
36. Moja L.P., Telaro E., D'Amico R., Moschetti I., Coe L., and Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ 330 (2005) 1053
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: Egger M., Davey Smith G., and Altman D.G. (Eds). Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. (2001), BMJ Publication Group, London, UK 285-312
38. Buscemi N., Hartling L., Vandermeer B., Tjosvold L., and Klassen T.P. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006) 697-703
39. Kremer L.C.M., and van Dalen E.C. Tips and tricks for understanding and using SR results-no. 11: P-values and confidence intervals. Evidence-Based Child Health 3 (2008) 904-906
40. The Cochrane Library. Product descriptions. [accessed 14.01.09].
41. Delaney A., Bagshaw S.M., Ferland A., Laupland K., Manns B., and Doig C. The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal. Crit Care Med 35 (2007) 589-594
42. Collier A., Heilig L., Schilling L., Williams H., and Dellavalle R.P. Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology. Br J Dermatol 155 (2006) 1230-1235
43. Jørgensen A.W., Hilden J., and Gøtzsche P.C. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333 (2006) 782
44. Jadad A.R., Cook D.J., Jones A., et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 280 (1998) 278-280
45. Jadad A.R., Moher M., Browman G.P., et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ 320 (2000) 537-540
46. Erratum in:. Jadad A.R., Moher M., Browman G.P., et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ 320 (2000) 984
47. Boluyt N., van der Lee J.H., Moyer V.A., Brand P.L., and Offringa M. State of the evidence on acute asthma management in children: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Pediatrics 120 (2007) 1334-1343
48. Shea B., Dubé C., and Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the QUOROM statement compared to other tools. In: Egger M., Smith G.D., and Altman D.G. (Eds). Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context (2001), BMJ Books, London 122-139
49. Shea B.J., Hamel C., Wells G.A., et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009) 1013-1020
50. Greenland S. Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading. Am J Epidemiol 140 (1994) 300-301
51. Yank V., Rennie D., and Bero L.A. Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 335 (2007) 1202-1205
52. Deeks J.J. Word limits best explain failings of industry supported meta-analyses. BMJ 333 (2006) 1021
53. 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. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 354 (1999) 1896-1900