Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: Has quality kept up with quantity?

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Volumn 92, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 48-57

  Dijkman, Bernadette G ^a   Abouali, Jihad A K ^a   Kooistra, Bauke W ^a   Conter, Henry J ^a   Poolman, Rudolf W ^b   Kulkarni, Abhaya V ^c   Tornetta III, Paul ^d   Bhandari, Mohit ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b ONZE LIEVE VROUWE GASTHUIS   (Netherlands)

^c HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^d BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHECKLIST; COCHRANE LIBRARY; EMBASE; HUMAN; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; STANDARD; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VALIDITY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; META ANALYSIS; ORTHOPEDICS;

HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; ORTHOPEDICS; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE;

EID: 73949160179     PISSN: 00219355     EISSN: 15351386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00251     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ. 1997;315:1533-7.
2. Egger M, Smith GD. Meta-analysis. Potentials and promise. BMJ. 1997;315:1371-4.
3. Gerbarg ZB, Horwitz RI. Resolving conflicting clinical trials: guidelines for meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41:503-9.
4. Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ, Cook DJ, Green L, Naylor CD, Wilson MC, Richardson WS. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the Users' Guides to patient care. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000;284:1290-6.
5. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1995;274:1800-4.
6. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:167-71.
7. Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, Tornetta P 3rd. Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:15-24. (Pubitemid 32116103)
8. Bero L, Rennie D. The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA. 1995;274:1935-8.
9. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271-8.
10. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, Goldsmith CH, Hutchison BG, Milner RA, Streiner DL. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:91-8.
11. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. 2nd ed. Boston: Little Brown; 1991. p 30.
12. Devereaux PJ, Choi PT, El-Dika S, Bhandari M, Montori VM, Schünemann HJ, Garg AX, Busse JW, Heels-Ansdell D, Ghali WA, Manns BJ, Guyatt GH. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report thesemethods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1232-6. (Pubitemid 40023142)
13. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.
14. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900.
15. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, Henry DA, Boers M. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1013-20.
16. Engberg S. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: studies of studies. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2008;35:258-65.
17. Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Pooling research results: benefits and limitations of meta-analysis. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1999;25:462-9.
18. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:820-6.
19. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609-13.
20. Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, Cook DJ, Doig C. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann Surg. 2005;241:450-9. (Pubitemid 40299721)
21. Jadad AR, McQuay HJ. Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:235-43.
22. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1878-86.
23. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1887-92. (Pubitemid 30419054)
24. Breslow NE, Day NE. Combination of results from a series of 2 × 2 tables; control of confounding. In: Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol. 1, the analysis of case-control studies. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1981. p 136-46.
25. Greenland S, Salvan A. Bias in the one-step method for pooling study results. Stat Med. 1990;9:247-52.
26. Montori V, Guyatt G, Oxman A, Cook D. Fixed-effects and random-effects models. In: Guyatt G, Drummond R, editors. Users' guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2001. p 539-45.
27. Montori VM, Swiontkowski MF, Cook DJ. Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:43-54.
28. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Laupland K,Manns B, Doig C. The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:589-94. (Pubitemid 46148553)
29. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;27:e78.
30. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, Moher D. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA. 1998;280:278-80.
31. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Manns B, Laupland KB, Doig CJ. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care. 2005;9:R575-82.
32. Rudmik LR, Walen SG, Dixon E, Dort J. Evaluation of meta-analyses in the otolaryngological literature. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;139:187-94.
33. Bereza BG, Machado M, Einarson TR. Assessing the reporting and scientific quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of treatments for anxiety disorders. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42:1402-9.