Selecting Studies and Collecting Data

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 151-185

  Higgins, Julian PT ^a,b   Deeks, Jonathan J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UK COCHRANE CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Basic study design characteristics; Cochrane review meeting pre specified criteria; Coding scheme use; Data collection form; Dichotomous outcome data extraction; Individual patient data (IPD) reviews; Selecting studies and collecting data; Selecting studies typical process; Time to event outcome data extraction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890777770     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470712184.ch7     Document Type: Chapter

References (27)

1. Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses?. University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. The Lancet 1997; 350: 185-186.
2. Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59: 697-703.
3. Collett D. Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1994.
4. Cooper H, Ribble RG. Influences on the outcome of literature searches for integrative research reviews. Knowledge 1989; 10: 179-201.
5. Dane AV, Schneider BH. Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control?. Clinical Psychology Review 1998; 18: 23-45.
6. Deeks J. Are you sure that's a standard deviation? (part 1). Cochrane News 1997; Issue No. 10: 11-12. (Available from www.cochrane.org/newslett/ccnewsbi.htm).
7. Deeks J. Are you sure that's a standard deviation? (part 2). Cochrane News 1997; Issue No. 11: 11-12. (Available from www.cochrane.org/newslett/ccnewsbi.htm).
8. Derry S, Loke YK. Risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage with long term use of aspirin: meta-analysis. BMJ 2000; 321: 1183-1187.
9. Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Falco M, Hansen WB. A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research 2003; 18: 237-256.
10. Early Breast CancerTrialists' Collaborative Group. Treatment of Early Breast Cancer.Volume 1:Worldwide Evidence 1985-1990. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press, 1990. (Available from www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk).
11. Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I,Wentz R. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21: 1635-1640.
12. Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Maric K, Tendal B. Data extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences. JAMA 2007; 298: 430-437.
13. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay H. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?. Controlled Clinical Trials 1996; 17: 1-12.
14. Jones AP, Remmington T, Williamson PR, Ashby D, Smyth RL. High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005; 58: 741-742.
15. Lumley J, Oliver SS, Chamberlain C, Oakley L. Interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 4. Art No: CD001055.
16. MacLennan JM, Shackley F, Heath PT, Deeks JJ, Flamank C, Herbert M, Griffiths H, Hatzmann E, Goilav C, Moxon ER. Safety, immunogenicity, and induction of immunologic memory by a serogroup C meningococcal conjugate vaccine in infants: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2000; 283: 2795-2801.
17. Meade MO, Richardson WS. Selecting and appraising studies for a systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997; 127: 531-537.
18. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. The Lancet 2001; 357: 1191-1194. (Available from www.consort-statement.org).
19. Orwin RG. Evaluating coding decisions. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV (editors). The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York (NY): Russell Sage Foundation, 1994.
20. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. The science of reviewing research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1993; 703: 125-133.
21. Parmar MKB, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17: 2815-2834.
22. StockWA. Systematic coding for research synthesis. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV (editors). The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York (NY): Russell Sage Foundation, 1994.
23. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials 2007; 8: 16.
24. Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ 1997; 315: 635-640.
25. von Elm E, Poglia G, Walder B, Tramèr MR. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA 2004; 291: 974-980.
26. Williamson PR, Smith CT, Hutton JL, Marson AG. Aggregate data meta-analysis with timeto-event outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21: 3337-3351.
27. Zanchetti A, Hansson L. Risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with aspirin (Authors' reply). The Lancet 1999; 353: 149-150.