A primer on performing systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Volumn 57, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 725-734

  Umscheid, Craig A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

heterogeneity; literature searching; meta analysis; reporting bias; systematic review

Indexed keywords

CINAHL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONFERENCE PAPER; DATA SYNTHESIS; EMBASE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCINFO; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

HETEROGENEITY; LITERATURE SEARCHING; META-ANALYSIS; REPORTING BIAS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH;

EID: 84881453629     PISSN: 10584838     EISSN: 15376591     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cit333     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (67)

1. Egger M, Davey Smith G. Meta-analysis: Potentials and promise. BMJ 1997; 315:1371-4.
2. Chang SM, Carey T, Kato EU, Guise JM, Sanders GD. Identifying research needs for improving health care. Ann InternMed 2012; 156:439-45.
3. Umscheid CA,Williams K, Brennan PJ. Hospital-based comparative effectiveness centers: Translating research into practice to improve the quality, safety and value of patient care. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25: 1352-5.
4. Luce BR, Brown RE. The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995; 11:79-92.
5. Pearson SD, Rawlins MD. Quality, innovation, and value for money: NICE and the British National Health Service. JAMA 2005; 294: 2618-22.
6. Umscheid CA, Agarwal RK, Brennan PJ. Updating the guideline development methodology of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Am J Infect Control 2010; 38:264-73.
7. Harris RP, Helfand M,Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: A review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001; 20(3 suppl):21-35.
8. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: Updated methodology. J Adv Nurs 2005; 52:546-53.
9. Stewart LA, Parmar MK. Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: Is there a difference?. Lancet 1993; 341:418-22.
10. Steinberg KK, Smith SJ, Stroup DF, et al. Comparison of effect estimates from a meta-analysis of summary data from published studies and from a meta-analysis using individual patient data for ovarian cancer studies. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 145:917-25.
11. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA, Feldman HI. Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: Ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med 2002; 21:371-87.
12. Umscheid CA. Maximizing the clinical utility of comparative effectiveness research. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010; 88:876-9.
13. Atkins D, Fink K, Slutsky J. Better information for better health care: The Evidence-based Practice Center program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142(12 Pt 2): 1035-41.
14. Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ series paper 3: Identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63:491-501.
15. Segal JB. Chapter 3: Choosing the important outcomes for a systematic review of a medical test. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27(suppl 1):S20-7.
16. Samson D, Schoelles KM. Chapter 2: Medical tests guidance (2) developing the topic and structuring systematic reviews of medical tests: Utility of PICOTS, analytic frameworks, decision trees, and other frameworks. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27(suppl 1):S11-9.
17. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: Defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res 2012; 1:181-94.
18. Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2007; 7:16.
19. Agarwal R, Schwartz DN. Procalcitonin to guide duration of antimicrobial therapy in intensive care units: A systematic review. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53:379-87.
20. Chou R, Helfand M. Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142(12 Pt 2):1090-9.
21. Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in metaanalysis: Power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53:1119-29.
22. Ioannidis JPA. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 1998; 279:281-6.
23. Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomized controlled trials in English and German. Lancet 1997; 350:326-9.
24. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; MR000005.
25. Egger M, Davey Smith G. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 1998; 316:61-6.
26. Dundar Y, Dodd S, Williamson P, Dickson R, Walley T. Case study of the comparison of data from conference abstracts and full-text articles in health technology assessment of rapidly evolving technologies: Does it make a difference?. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006; 22:288-94.
27. Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: Empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31:115-23.
28. Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, et al. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53:964-72.
29. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci 2010; 5:56.
30. Shultz M. Mapping of medical acronyms and initialisms to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) across selected systems. J Med Libr Assoc 2006; 94:410-4.
31. Institute of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. 2011. Available at: Http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding- What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews.aspx. Accessed 1 November 2012.
32. Sood A, Erwin PJ, Ebbert JO. Using advanced search tools on PubMed for citation retrieval. Mayo Clin Proc 2004; 79:1295-9.
33. Ebbert JO, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ. Searching the medical literature using PubMed: A tutorial. Mayo Clin Proc 2003; 78:87-91.
34. Health Information Research Unit, McMaster University. Search filters for MEDLINE in Ovid Syntax and the PubMed translation. 2012. Available at: Http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/HIRU-Hedges-MEDLINE-Strategies.aspx. Accessed 1 November 2012.
35. Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S, Sharp BA. AHRQ series paper 1: Comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63:481-3.
36. Relevo R. Chapter 4: Effective search strategies for systematic reviews of medical tests. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27(suppl 1):S28-32.
37. Relevo R, Balshem H. Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64:1168-77.
38. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2011. Available at: Http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane- handbook. Accessed 1 November 2012.
39. Sampson M, Barrowman NJ, Moher D, et al. Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline?. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56:943-55.
40. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17:1-12.
41. Schulz KF CI, Hayes RJ, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273:408-12.
42. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tigwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clin Trials 1995; 16: 62-73.
43. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JPT. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: A systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007; 36:666-76.
44. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2011. Available at: Http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical-epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 1 November 2012.
45. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155:529-36.
46. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trial for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999; 282:1054-60.
47. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures. BMJ 1997; 315:1533-7.
48. Poole C, Greenland S. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 150:469-75.
49. Egger M, Schneider M, Davey Smith G. Spurious precision?. Meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ 1998; 316:140-4.
50. Trikalinos TA, Balion CM, Coleman CI, et al. Chapter 8: Meta-analysis of test performance when there is a "gold standard." J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27(suppl 1):S56-66.
51. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58:982-90.
52. Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach tometa-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med 2001; 20:2865-84.
53. Sun F, Bruening W, Erinoff E, Schoelles KM. Addressing challenges in genetic test evaluation: Evaluation frameworks and assessment of analytic validity. 2012. Avialable at: Http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56750/. Accessed 29 May 2013.
54. Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64:1187-97.
55. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327:557-60.
56. Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ 1994; 309:1351-5.
57. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315:629-34.
58. Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J. In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58:894-901.
59. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62:1006-12.
60. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7:10.
61. Smetana GW, Umscheid CA, Chang S, Matchar DB. Methods guide for authors of systematic reviews of medical tests: A collaboration between the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Journal of General Internal Medicine. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27(suppl 1):S1-3.
62. Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. 2012. Available at: Http://srdta.cochrane.org/ handbook-dta-reviews. Accessed 1 November 2012.
63. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001.
64. Center for Clinical Evidence Synthesis. Abstrackr. Available at: Http://tuftscaes.org/citation-screening/. Accessed 19 April 2013.
65. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . Systematic Review Data Repository. Available at: Http://srdr.ahrq.gov/. Accessed 19 April 2013.
66. Cochrane Collaboration. RevMan. 2012. Available at: Http://ims.cochrane. org/revman. Accessed 19 April 2013.
67. OpenMeta[Analyst], 2012. Available at: Http://www.cebm.brown.edu/open- meta. Accessed 19 April 2013.