Disorganized Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: Time to Systematize the Conduct and Publication of These Study Overviews?

American Journal of Medicine

Volumn 129, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 339.e11-339.e18

  Riaz, Irbaz Bin ^a   Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb ^b   Riaz, Haris ^c   Goldberg, Robert J ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b DOW UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES   (Pakistan)

^c LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Meta Analyses; Recommendations; Redundant; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

CASE STUDY; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL MEDICINE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; HEART SURGERY; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PATENT FORAMEN OVALE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGISTRATION; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); TRANSCATHETER PATENT FORAMEN OVALE CLOSURE; LITERATURE;

HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84958042578     PISSN: 00029343     EISSN: 15557162     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.10.009     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. M. Starr, I. Chalmers, M. Clarke, and A.D. Oxman The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25 suppl 1 2009 182 195
2. R.L. Osnabrugge, D. Capodanno, P. Cummins, P. Kappetein, and P.W. Serruys Review and recommendations on the current practice of meta-analyses: a guide to appraise the evidence EuroIntervention 9 2014 1013 1020
3. F. Davidoff, B. Haynes, D. Sackett, and R. Smith Evidence based medicine BMJ 310 1995 1085 1086
4. M. Egger, and G.D. Smith Meta-analysis. Potentials and promise BMJ 315 1997 1371 1374
5. D. Fergusson, K.C. Glass, B. Hutton, and S. Shapiro Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding? Clin Trials 2 2005 218 229
6. K.C. Siontis, T. Hernandez-Boussard, and J.P. Ioannidis Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies BMJ 347 2013 f4501
7. M. Heras, P. Avanzas, A. Bayes-Genis, M. Pan, L. Pérez de Isla, and J. Sanchis Unplanned redundant publication: a consequence of too many cardiovascular journals? EuroIntervention 6 2010 179 181
8. M.T. Wang, and T.K. Wang The tsunami of meta-analyses of patent foramen ovale closure for secondary prevention of cryptogenic stroke EuroIntervention 10 2014 771 772
9. A.J. Furlan, M. Reisman, J. Massaro, and et al. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale N Engl J Med 366 2012 991 999
10. J.D. Carroll, J.L. Saver, D.E. Thaler, and et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke N Engl J Med 368 2013 1092 1100
11. B. Meier, B. Kalesan, H.P. Mattle, and et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism N Engl J Med 368 2013 1083 1091
12. J.S. Kwong, Y.Y. Lam, and C.M. Yu Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Int J Cardiol 168 2013 4132 4138
13. G. Ntaios, V. Papavasileiou, K. Makaritsis, and P. Michel PFO closure vs. medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Cardiol 169 2013 101 105
14. P. Rengifo-Moreno, I.F. Palacios, P. Junpaparp, C.F. Witzke, D.L. Morris, and A. Romero-Corral Patent foramen ovale transcatheter closure vs. medical therapy on recurrent vascular events: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials Eur Heart J 34 2013 3342 3352
15. V. Nagaraja, J. Raval, G.D. Eslick, D. Burgess, and A.R. Denniss Is transcatheter closure better than medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale? A meta-analysis of randomized trials Heart Lung Circ 22 2013 903 909
16. A.M. Pineda, F.O. Nascimento, S.C. Yang, A.J. Kirtane, R.J. Sommer, and N. Beohar A meta-analysis of transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy for prevention of recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with cryptogenic cerebrovascular events Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 82 2013 968 975
17. A. Hakeem, K. Marmagkiolis, Y. Hacioglu, and et al. Safety and efficacy of device closure for patent foramen ovale for secondary prevention of neurological events: comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Cardiovasc Revasc Med 14 2013 349 355
18. I.B. Riaz, A. Dhoble, A. Mizyed, and et al. Transcatheter patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials BMC Cardiovasc Disord 13 2013 116
19. A.R. Khan, A.A. Bin Abdulhak, M.A. Sheikh, and et al. Device closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6 2013 1316 1323
20. I. Salas-Gutierrez, I. Reyes-Melo, E. Chiquete, M.L. Ruiz-Flores, and C. Cantu-Brito Efficacy of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in preventing recurrent events, compared with standard medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis Rev Mex Neuroci 14 2013 299 305
21. L. Chen, S. Luo, L. Yan, and W. Zhao A systematic review of closure versus medical therapy for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack J Neurol Sci 337 2014 3 7
22. D. Capodanno, G. Milazzo, L. Vitale, and et al. Updating the evidence on patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis of 2,303 patients from three randomised trials and 2,231 patients from 11 observational studies EuroIntervention 9 2014 1342 1349
23. F.A. Spencer, L.C. Lopes, S.A. Kennedy, and G. Guyatt Systematic review of percutaneous closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale BMJ Open 4 2014 e004282
24. M. Wolfrum, G.M. Froehlich, G. Knapp, and et al. Stroke prevention by percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis Heart 100 2014 389 395
25. A. Pandit, M.R. Aryal, A.A. Pandit, and et al. Amplatzer PFO occluder device may prevent recurrent stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomised trials Heart Lung Circ 23 2014 303 308
26. C.A. Pickett, T.C. Villines, M.A. Ferguson, and E.A. Hulten Percutaneous closure versus medical therapy alone for cryptogenic stroke patients with a patent foramen ovale: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Tex Heart Inst J 1 41 2014 357 367
27. J.A. Udell, A.R. Opotowsky, P. Khairy, and et al. Patent foramen ovale closure vs medical therapy for stroke prevention: meta-analysis of randomized trials an review of heterogeneity in meta-analyses Can J Cardiol 30 2014 1216 1224
28. S. Stortecky, B.R. da Costa, H.P. Mattle, and et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic embolism: a network meta-analysis Eur Heart J 36 2015 120 128
29. D. Capodanno Reply to the letter to the editor: the case for duplicate meta-analyses of patent foramen ovale closure in patients with cryptogenic stroke: more a ripple than a tsunami EuroIntervention 10 2014 772
30. M.J. Bolland, and A. Grey A case study of discordant overlapping meta-analyses: vitamin D supplements and fracture PLoS One 9 2014 e115934
31. D. Moher, L. Shamseer, M. Clarke, and et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P). 2015 statement Syst Rev 4 2015 1
32. D.J. Cook, B.K. Reeve, G.H. Guyatt, and et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Resolving discordant meta-analyses JAMA 275 1996 308 314
33. R.W. Poolman, J.A. Abouali, H.J. Conter, and M. Bhandari Overlapping systematic reviews of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing hamstring autograft with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: why are they different? J Bone Joint Surg Am 89 2007 1542 1552
34. K. Thorlund, E. Druyts, J.A. Avina-Zubieta, P. Wu, and E.J. Mills Why the findings of published multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses of biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis are different: an overview of recurrent methodological shortcomings Ann Rheum Dis 72 2013 1524 1535
35. E. Wager Why is redundant publication a problem? Int J Occup Environ Med 6 2015 3 6
36. D. Moher, J. Tetzlaff, A.C. Tricco, M. Sampson, and D.G. Altman Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews PLoS Med 4 2007 e78
37. I. Shrier, J.F. Boivin, R.W. Platt, and et al. The interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analyses: an objective or subjective process? BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 8 2008 19
38. L. Stewart, D. Moher, and P. Shekelle Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense Syst Rev 1 2012 7
39. A. Booth, M. Clarke, G. Dooley, and et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews Syst Rev 1 2012 2
40. P.T. Von Hippel The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses BMC Med Res Methodol 15 2015 35
41. J.H. Elliott, T. Turner, O. Clavisi, and et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap PLoS Med 11 2 2014 e1001603
42. Y. Takwoingi, S. Hopewell, D. Tovey, and A.J. Sutton A multicomponent decision tool for prioritising the updating of systematic reviews BMJ 347 2013 f7191