"Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Volumn 10, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1184-1186

  Kanwal, Fasiha ^a   White, Donna ^a  

^a BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; DISEASE SEVERITY; EDITORIAL; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOLLOW UP; GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASE; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROGNOSIS; RACE DIFFERENCE; SEX DIFFERENCE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

BIBLIOMETRICS; GASTROENTEROLOGY; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84867682877     PISSN: 15423565     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.09.019     Document Type: Editorial

References (17)

1. MEDLINE fact sheet Accessed July 25, 2012. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/medline.html.
2. Oxman A.D., Guyatt G.H. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. Can Med Assoc J 1988, 138:697-703.
3. West S., King V., Carey T.S., et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 47 April 2002, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville, MD, Report No.: 02-E016.
4. Hartling L., Frenades R.M., Seida J., et al. From the trendches: a cross-sectional study applying the GADE tool in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. PLoS One 2012, 7:e34697.
5. Reliability testing of the AHRQ EPC approach to grading the strength of evidence in comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care May 2012, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville, MD, Report No.: 12-EHC067-EF. N.D. Berkman, K.N. Lohr, L.C. Morgan (Eds.).
6. Validity and inter-rater reliability testing of quality assessment instruments. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care March 2012, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville, MD, Report No.: 12-EHC039-EF. L. Hartling, M. Hamm, A. Milne (Eds.).
7. Guyatt G.H., Oxman A.D., Kunz R., et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence-inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiology 2011, 64:1294-1302.
8. Whitehead A., Whitehead J. A general parametric approach to the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1991, 10:1665-1677.
9. Thompson S.G., Pocock S.J. Can meta-analysis be trusted?. Lancet 1991, 338:1127-1130.
10. Higgins J.P., Thompson S.G., Deeks J.J., et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ 2003, 327:557-560.
11. 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008, 8:79.
12. Higgins J.P.T., Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011) Accessed July 27, 2012. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/.
13. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance of undertaking reviews in health care Center for Reviews and Dissemination, Accessed July 27, 2012. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf.
14. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Accessed July 27, 2012. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/60/318/MethodsGuide_Prepublication-Draft_20120523.pdf.
15. Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009, 339:b2700.
16. 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. JAMA 2000, 283:2008-2012.
17. Guyatt G.H., Oxman A.D., Schünemann H.J., et al. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:380-382.