Heterogeneity in meta-analyses of treatment of acute postoperative pain: A review

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Volumn 111, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 897-906

  Espitalier, F ^a,b,d   Tavernier, E ^a,b,e   Remerand F ^b,d   Laffon, M ^b,c,e   Fusciardi, J ^b,c,d   Giraudeau, B ^a,b,c,e  

^a INSERM   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF TOURS   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE TOURS   (France)

^d SERVICE DE DERMATOLOGIE   (France)

^e CHU BRETONNEAU   (France)

Author keywords

Acute pain; Analgesics; Pain; Postoperative

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL SURGERY; CHOLECYSTECTOMY; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DENTAL SURGERY; HUMAN; KNEE ARTHROSCOPY; LIVER RESECTION; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NEPHRECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE ANALGESIA; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; STOMACH SURGERY; TOOTH PAIN;

EID: 84887960816     PISSN: 00070912     EISSN: 14716771     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aet250     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. Br Med J 1994; 309: 1351-5.
2. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PMM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1525-37.
3. Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed 1 December 2011).
4. Laska EM, Sunshine A, Wanderling JA, Meisner MJ. Quantitative differences in aspirin analgesia in three models of clinical pain. J Clin Pharmacol 1982; 22: 531-42.
5. Beaussier M. [Frequency, intensity, development and repercussions of postoperative pain as a function of the type of surgery.] Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 1998; 17: 471-93.
6. Toms L, McQuay HJ, Derry S, Moore RA. Single dose oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for postoperative pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; 4: CD004602.
7. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1013-20.
8. Greenland S. Randomization, statistics, and causal inference. Epidemiology 1990; 1: 421-9.
9. Subramaniam K, Subramaniam B, Steinbrook RA. Ketamine as adjuvant analgesic to opioids: A quantitative and qualitative systematic review. Anesth Analg 2004; 99: 482-95.
10. Gavaghan DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ.An evaluation ofhomogeneity tests in meta-analyses in pain using simulations of individual patient data. Pain 2000; 85: 415-24.
11. L'Abbé KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107: 224-33.
12. Barden J, Edwards JE, McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Single-dose rofecoxib for acute postoperative pain in adults: A quantitative systematic review. BMC Anesthesiol 2002; 2: 4.
13. Gray A, Kehlet H, Bonnet F, Rawal N. Predicting postoperative analgesiaoutcomes: NNTleague tables or procedure-specific evidence? Br J Anaesth 2005; 94: 710-4.
14. 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.
15. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. JAMA 1998; 280: 278-80.
16. Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J, et al. Quality of Cochrane reviews: Assessment of sample from 1998. Br Med J 2001; 323: 829-32.
17. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: e1-34.
18. Sharpe D. Of apples and oranges, file drawersandgarbage:why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away. Clin Psychol Rev 1997; 17: 881-901.