How to critically appraise and apply meta-analyses in clinical practice

International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 294-299

  Ho, Roger C M ^a   Ong, Hatta S ^a   Kudva, Kundadak G ^a   Cheung, Mike W L ^b   Mak, Anselm ^c  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences   (Singapore)

^c Dept Medicine Endocrinol Diabet   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Critical appraisal; Cyclophosphamide; Meta analysis; Mycophenolate mofetil; Proliferative lupus nephritis

Indexed keywords

CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID 2 MORPHOLINOETHYL ESTER;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS NEPHRITIS; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUPUS NEPHRITIS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MYCOPHENOLIC ACID; PATIENT SELECTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77958111678     PISSN: 17561841     EISSN: 1756185X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-185X.2010.01560.x     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Mak A, Cheak AA, Tan JY, Su HC, Ho RC, Lau CS (2009) Mycophenolate mofetil is as efficacious as, but safer than, cyclophosphamide in the treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Rheumatology (Oxford) 48, 944-52.
2. Abalos E, Carroli G, Mackey ME, Bergel E (2001) Critical appraisal of Systematic Reviews: The WHO Reproductive Health Library, No 4, Geneva, The World Health Organisation, [WHO/RHR/01.6].
3. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH (1994) Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 272, 1367-71.
4. Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M (2000) Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 53, 1119-29.
5. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al. (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17, 1-12.
6. Cochrane Handbook for Systemic Reviews of Interventions. (accessed March 18, 2009].
7. Fleiss JL (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76, 378-82.
8. Gavaghan DJ, Moore AR, McQay HJ (2000) An evaluation of homogeneity tests in meta-analysis in pain using simulations of patient data. Pain 85, 415-24.
9. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327, 557-60.
10. Lau CS, Mak A (2009) The socioeconomic burden of SLE. Nat Rev Rheumatol 5, 400-4.
11. Barton S (2000) Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? The best RCT still trumps the best observational study. BMJ 321, 255-6.