Scientific hypotheses can be tested by comparing the effects of one treatment over many diseases in a systematic review

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 67, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 1309-1319

  Chen, Yen Fu ^a,b   Hemming, Karla ^a   Chilton, Peter J ^a   Gupta, Keshav K ^c   Altman, Douglas G ^d   Lilford, Richard J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Assessing harms; Detecting unintended effects; Evaluating effectiveness; Multiple indication reviews; Overviews; Panoramic meta analyses; Research methods

Indexed keywords

ALLOPATHY; DISEASES; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; INTERVENTION STUDY; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); LITERATURE; NOMENCLATURE; PROCEDURES; PUBLISHING; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

HUMANS; PUBLICATION BIAS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84922479934     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.007     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JA. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA 2005;293:2362-6.
2. Ioannidis JP. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. Can Med Assoc J 2009;181:488-93.
3. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
4. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
5. Shea B, Grimshaw J, Wells G, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.
6. Hemming K, Bowater RJ, Lilford RJ. Pooling systematic reviews of systematic reviews: a Bayesian panoramic meta-analysis. Stat Med 2012;31:201-16.
7. Salanti G, Dias S,Welton NJ, Ades AE, Golfinopoulos V, Kyrgiou M, et al. Evaluating novel agent effects in multiple-treatments meta-regression. Stat Med 2010;29:2369-83.
8. Askling J, van Vollenhoven RF, Granath F, Raaschou P, Fored CM, Baecklund E, et al. Cancer risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapies: does the risk change with the time since start of treatment? Arthritis Rheum 2009;60:3180-9.
9. Curtis SP, Ko AT, Bolognese JA, Cavanaugh PF, Reicin AS. Pooled analysis of thrombotic cardiovascular events in clinical trials of the COX-2 selective inhibitor etoricoxib. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:2365-74.
10. Moore A, Makinson G, Li C. Patient-level pooled analysis of adjudicated gastrointestinal outcomes in celecoxib clinical trials: meta-analysis of 51,000 patients enrolled in 52 randomized trials. Arthritis Res Ther 2013;15:R6.
11. Ioannidis JP, Karassa FB. The need to consider the wider agenda in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: breadth, timing, and depth of the evidence. BMJ 2010;341:c4875.
12. Hemming K, Pinkney T, Futaba K, Pennant M, Morton DG, Lilford RJ. A systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis: staples versus sutures for surgical procedures. PLoS One 2013;8:e75132.
13. Loke YK, Price D, Herxheimer A. Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:32.
14. Vandenbroucke JP. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet 2004;363:1728-31.
15. Loke YK, Price D, Herxheimer A. Chapter 14: adverse effects. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 16 May 2014.
16. Jick H, Miettinen OS, Shapiro S, Lewis GP, Siskind V, Slone D. Comprehensive drug surveillance. JAMA 1970;213:1455-60.
17. Bowater RJ, Abdelmalik SM, Lilford RJ. Efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery when considered over all cancer types: a synthesis of meta-analyses. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:3343-50.
18. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ioannidis JP. Claims for improved survival from systemic corticosteroids in diverse conditions: an umbrella review. Eur J Clin Invest 2012;42:233-44.
19. Bowater RJ, Stirling SA, Lilford RJ. Is antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery a generally effective intervention? Testing a generic hypothesis over a set of meta-analyses. Ann Surg 2009;249:551-6.
20. Lord JM, Midwinter MJ, Chen Y-F, Belli A, Brohi K, Kovacs EJ, et al. The systemic inflammatory response to acute trauma: overview of pathophysiology and treatment. Lancet 2014. In press.
21. Taylor D, Meader N, Bird V, Pilling S, Creed F, Goldberg D, et al. Pharmacological interventions for people with depression and chronic physical health problems: systematic review and meta-analyses of safety and efficacy. Br J Psychiatry 2011;198:179-88.
22. Butler AC, Chapman JE, Forman EM, Beck AT. The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses. Clin Psychol Rev 2006;26:17-31.
23. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000326.
24. Silva V, Grande AJ, Martimbianco AL, Riera R, Carvalho AP. Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom? Sao Paulo Med J 2012;130:398-404.
25. Cooper H, Koenka AC. The overview of reviews: unique challenges and opportunities when research syntheses are the principal elements of new integrative scholarship. Am Psychol 2012;67:446-62.
26. Moore A, Jull G. The systematic review of systematic reviews has arrived!. Man Ther 2006;11:91-2.
27. Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011;11:15.
28. Pieper D, Buechter R, Jerinic P, Eikermann M. Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:1267-73.
29. Becker LA, Oxman AD. Chapter 22: overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 16 May 2014.
30. Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof 2002;25:76-97.
31. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Rothstein HR. Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots. BMJ 2008;336:1413-5.
32. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 9: analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 16 May 2014.
33. Popper KR. The logic of scientific discovery. 2nd ed. London, UK: Routledge; 2002.
34. Collins R, Peto R, Gray R, Parish S. Large-scale randomized evidence: trials and overviews. In: Weatherall DJ, Ledingham JGG, Warrell DA, editors. Oxford textbook of medicine. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1996:21-32.
35. Turner RM, Spiegelhalter DJ, Smith GC, Thompson SG. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 2009;172:21-47.
36. Hammad TA, Neyarapally GA, Pinheiro SP, Iyasu S, Rochester G, Dal Pan G. Reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with a focus on drug safety: an empirical assessment. Clin Trials 2013;10:389-97.