Systematic reviews supporting practice guideline recommendations lack protection against bias

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 66, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 633-638

  Brito, Juan P ^a,b   Tsapas, Apostolos ^c   Griebeler, Marcio L ^a   Wang, Zhen ^a   Prutsky, Gabriela J ^a,b   Domecq, Juan Pablo ^a,b   Murad, M Hassan ^a   Montori, Victor M ^a,b  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSIDAD PERUANA CAYETANO HEREDIA   (Peru)

^c ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

Author keywords

AMSTAR; Clinical practice guidelines; Endocrinology; Quality; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED STUDY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; ENDOCRINOLOGY; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84876917800     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.008     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Institute of Medicine (IOM) Finding what works in health care. Standards for systematic reviews Rep Brief 2011 Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/ 2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews/ Report-Brief.aspx Accessed November 7, 2012
2. J.N. Lavis How can we support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking? PLoS Med 6 2009 e1000141
3. V.M. Montori, M.F. Swiontkowski, and D.J. Cook Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses Clin Orthopaedics Relat Res 2003 43 54
4. A. Lundh, S.L. Knijnenburg, A.W. Jorgensen, E.C. van Dalen, and L.C. Kremer Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology - a systematic review Cancer Treat Rev 35 8 2009 645 652
5. V.M. Montori Evidence-based endocrinology 2006 Humana Press Totowa
6. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available at www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed November 7, 2012.
7. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D.G. Altman Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement PLoS Med 6 2009 e1000097
8. B.J. Shea, J.M. Grimshaw, G.A. Wells, M. Boers, N. Andersson, and C. Hamel Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews BMC Med Res Methodol 7 2007 10
9. A.D. Oxman, H.J. Schunemann, and A. Fretheim Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence Health Research Policy Systems/BioMed Cent 4 2006 20
10. B.J. Shea, L.M. Bouter, J. Peterson, M. Boers, N. Andersson, and Z. Ortiz External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) PLoS One 2 2007 e1350
11. B.J. Shea, C. Hamel, G.A. Wells, L.M. Bouter, E. Kristjansson, and J. Grimshaw AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews J Clin Epidemiol 62 2009 1013 1020
12. S. Oestergaard, and C. Moldrup Improving outcomes for patients with depression by enhancing antidepressant therapy with non-pharmacological interventions: a systematic review of reviews Public Health 125 2011 357 367
13. L. Monasta, G.D. Batty, A. Cattaneo, V. Lutje, L. Ronfani, and F.J. Van Lenthe Early-life determinants of overweight and obesity: a review of systematic reviews Obes Rev Official J Int Assoc Study Obes 11 2010 695 708
14. G. Martel, S. Duhaime, J.S. Barkun, R.P. Boushey, C.R. Ramsay, and D.A. Fergusson The quality of research synthesis in surgery: the case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer Syst Rev 1 2012 14
15. C. Begg, M. Cho, S. Eastwood, R. Horton, D. Moher, and I. Olkin Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement JAMA 276 1996 637 639
16. J.L. Brozek, E.A. Akl, P. Alonso-Coello, D. Lang, R. Jaeschke, and J.W. Williams Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions Allergy 64 2009 669 677
17. H. Balshem, M. Helfand, H.J. Schunemann, A.D. Oxman, R. Kunz, and J. Brozek GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence J Clin Epidemiol 64 2011 401 406
18. S. Straus, and D. Moher Registering systematic reviews CMAJ 182 2010 13 14