When may systematic reviews and meta-analyses be considered reliable?

European Journal of Anaesthesiology

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 85-87

  Afshari, Arash ^a   Wetterslev, Jørn ^a  

^a Mental Health Services CPH   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DESFLURANE; INHALATION ANESTHETIC AGENT; PROPOFOL;

GENERAL ANESTHESIA; HUMAN; LARYNGEAL MASK; MEDICAL LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NOTE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); PROCEDURES;

ANESTHESIA, GENERAL; ANESTHETICS, INHALATION; HUMANS; LARYNGEAL MASKS;

EID: 84927722400     PISSN: 02650215     EISSN: 13652346     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000186     Document Type: Note

References (30)

1. Stevanovic A, Rossaint R, Fritz HG, et al. Airway reactions and emergence times in general laryngeal mask airway anaesthesia. A meta-analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2015; 32:106-116.
2. Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JP. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. BMJ 2003; 327:1083-1084.
3. LeLorier J, Grégoire G, Benhaddad A, et al. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:536-542.
4. Crowe M, Sheppard L. A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: alternative tool structure is proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64:79-89.
5. Lundh A, Gøtzsche PC. Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008; 8:22.
6. Higgins JPT, Green S, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.0. Wiley; 2009.
7. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343:d5928.
8. Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I, Turner L, et al. Assessing risk of bias in clinical trials included in Cochrane Reviews: the why is easy, the how is a challenge. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 4: ED000058.
9. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896-1900.
10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339:b2535.
11. Tao KM, Li XQ, Zhou QH, et al. From QUOROM to PRISMA: a survey of high-impact medical journals' instructions to authors and a review of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature. PLoS One 2011; 6: e27611.
12. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, et al. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology 2013; 269:413-426.
13. Panic N, Leoncini E, De Belvis G, et al. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One 2013; 8:e83138.
14. Gagnier JJ, Kellam PJ. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95:e771-e777.
15. Flather MD, Farkouh ME, Pogue JM, et al. Strengths and limitations of meta-analysis: larger studies may be more reliable. Control Clin Trials 1997; 18:568-579.
16. Pogue JM, Yusuf S. Cumulating evidence from randomized trials: utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulative meta-analysis. Control Clin Trials 1997; 18:580-593.
17. Thorlund K, Devereaux PJ, Wetterslev J, et al. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? Int J Epidemiol 2009; 38:276-286.
18. Higgins JP, Whitehead A, Simmonds M. Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med 2011; 30:903-921.
19. Imberger G, Vejlby AD, Hansen SB, et al. Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. PLoS One 2011; 6:e28422.
20. Borm GF, Donders AR. Updating meta-analyses leads to larger type Ierrors than publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62:825-830.
21. Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, et al. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61:763-769.
22. Thorlund K, Imberger G, Walsh M, et al. The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analysis - a simulation study. PLoS One 2011; 6:e25491.
23. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, et al. Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9:86.
24. Hedges LV, Pigott TD. The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods 2001; 6:203-217.
25. Turner RM, Bird SM, Higgins JP. The impactofstudy sizeonmeta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews. PLoS One 2013; 8:e59202.
26. Pereira TV, Horwitz RI, Ioannidis JP. Empirical evaluation of very large treatment effects of medical interventions. JAMA 2012; 308:1676-1684.
27. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, et al. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61:64-75.
28. Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, et al. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive - trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol 2009; 38:287-298.
29. Pereira TV, Ioannidis JP. Statistically significant meta-analyses of clinical trials have modest credibility and inflated effects. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64:1060-1069.
30. Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev J, et al. User manual for trial sequential analysis (TSA). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research; 2011. pp. 1-115. www.ctu.dk/tsa.