History of evidence synthesis to assess treatment effects: Personal reflections on something that is very much alive

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Volumn 109, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 154-163

  Clarke, Mike ^a  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS; HEALTH; HISTORY OF MEDICINE; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ONLINE SYSTEM; QUALITY CONTROL; SOCIAL CARE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); TREATMENT OUTCOME; WRITING; HISTORY; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HISTORIOGRAPHY; HISTORY, 18TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 19TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84964057104     PISSN: 01410768     EISSN: 17581095     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0141076816640243     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. S.LewisM.Clarke. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ2001; 322: 1479–1480.
2. I.ChalmersL.V.HedgesH.Cooper. A brief history of research synthesis. Eval Health Prof2002; 25: 12–37.
3. M.StarrI.ChalmersM.ClarkeA.D.Oxman. The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Tech Assess Health Care2009; 25(Suppl. 1): 182–195.
4. H.BastianP.GlasziouI.Chalmers. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?PLoS Med2010; 7: e1000326–e1000326.
5. D.M.Fox. Systematic reviews and health policy: the influence of a project on perinatal care since 1988. Milbank Q2011; 89: 425–449.
6. W.R.ShadishJ.D.Lecy. The meta-analytic big bang. Res Synth Methods2015; 6: 246–264.
7. K.Dickersin. Innovation and cross-fertilization in systematic reviews and meta-analysis: the influence of women investigators. Res Synth Methods2015; 6: 277–283.
8. E.H.KassReviewing reviews. In: (ed). Coping with the Biomedical Literature, New York: Praeger, 1981, pp. 79–91.
9. C.D.Mulrow. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Int Med1987; 106: 485–488.
10. H.S.SacksJ.BerrierD.ReitmanV.A.Ancona-BerkT.C.Chalmers. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. New Engl J Med1987; 316: 450–455.
11. Mulrow CD. We’ve come a long way, baby! The Cochrane Collaboration Methods Working Groups Newsletter, 1–2, 1998. See http://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Newsletters/MGNews_1998.pdf
12. D.MoherJ.TetzlaffA.C.TriccoM.SampsonD.G.Altman. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med2007; 4: e78–e78.
13. O’Rourke K. A historical perspective on meta-analysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results. JLL Bull, 2006. See http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/a-historical-perspective-on-meta-analysis-dealing-quantitatively-with-varying-study-results/
14. Anon. Reviews and notices. BMJ1867; 2: 425–426.
15. P.G.Goldschmidt. Information synthesis: a practical guide. HSR1986; 21: 215–236.
16. Cooper H, Hedges LV, ed. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994
17. D.B.Pettiti. Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
18. Higgins JPT and Green S, ed. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration; John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 2008
19. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care, York: University of York, 2009.
20. Rayleigh L. Address by the Rt. Hon. Lord Rayleigh. In: Report of the fifty-fourth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Montreal, QC, Canada, August and September. London: John Murray, 1885
21. G.M.Gould. The work of an association of medical librarians. J Med Libr Assoc1898; 1: 15–19.
22. H.WechslerG.H.GrosserM.Greenblatt. Research evaluating antidepressant medications on hospitalized mental patients: a survey of published reports during a five-year period. J Nerv Ment Dis1965; 141: 231–239.
23. K.DickersinR.SchererC.Lefebvre. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ1994; 309: 1286–1291.
24. C.LefebvreA.EisingaS.McDonaldN.Paul. Enhancing access to reports of randomized trials published world-wide – the contribution of EMBASE records to the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library. Emerg Them Epidemiol2008; 5: 13–13.
25. J.Lind. A Treatise of the Scurvy. In Three Parts. Containing an Inquiry into the Nature, Causes and Cure, of that Disease. Together with a Critical and Chronological View of What has been Published on the Subject, Edinburgh: Printed by Sands, Murray and Cochran for A Kincaid and A Donaldson, 1753.
26. A.SmithE.TraganzaG.Harrison. Studies on the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs. Psychopharmacol Bull1969; March(Suppl.): 1–53.
27. K.A.Feldman. Using the work of others: some observations on reviewing and integrating. Sociol Educ1971; 44: 86–102.
28. R.J.LightP.V.Smith. Accumulating evidence: procedures for resolving contradictions among research studies. Harvard Educ Rev1971; 41: 429–471.
29. E.Garfield. Proposal for a new profession: scientific reviewer. Scientist1977; 3: 84–87.
30. E.Garfield. The NAS James Murray Luck Award for excellence in scientific reviewing. Scientist1979; 4: 127–131.
31. K.Pearson. Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. BMJ1904; 3: 1243–1246.
32. J.G.PrattJ.B.RhineB.M.SmithC.E.StuartJ.A.Greenwood. Extra-Sensory Perception after Sixty Years: A Critical Appraisal of the Research in Extra-Sensory Perception, New York: Henry Holt, 1940.
33. G.V.Glass. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res1976; 10: 3–8.
34. M.L.SmithG.V.Glass. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. Am Psychol1977; 32: 752–760.
35. G.AndrewsS.W.MacMahonA.AustinD.G.Byrne. Hypertension: comparison of drug and non-drug treatments. BMJ1982; 284: 1523–1526.
36. R.PetoM.C.PikeP.ArmitageN.E.BreslowD.R.CoxS.V.Howard. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. Analysis and examples. Br J Cancer1977; 35: 1–39.
37. J.A.FreimanT.C.ChalmersH.SmithR.R.Kuebler. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 “negative” trials. New Engl J Med1978; 299: 690–694.
38. J.A.Lewis. Beta-blockade after myocardial infarction – a statistical view. Br J Clin Pharmacol1982; 14: 15S–21S.
39. Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration. Secondary prevention of vascular disease by prolonged anti-platelet treatment. BMJ1988; 296: 320–331.
40. W.ShaikhE.VaydaW.Feldman. A systematic review of the literature on evaluative studies on tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. Pediatrics1976; 57: 401–407.
41. L.ClarkeM.ClarkeT.Clarke. How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs?J Health Serv Res Pol2007; 12: 101–103.
42. S.GarnerM.DochertyJ.SomnerT.SharmaM.ChoudhuryM.Clarke. Reducing ineffective practice: challenges in identifying low-value health care using Cochrane systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Pol2013; 18: 6–12.
43. M.Clarke. Doing new research? Don’t forget the old: nobody should do a trial without reviewing what is known. PLoS Med2004; 1: 100–102.
44. M.R.MacleodS.MichieI.RobertsU.DirnaglI.ChalmersJ.P.Ioannidis. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet2014; 383: 101–104.
45. M.ClarkeA.BriceI.Chalmers. Accumulating research: a systematic account of how cumulative meta-analyses would have provided knowledge, improved health, reduced harm and saved resources. PLoS ONE2014; 9: e102670–e102670.
46. S.C.RogersP.M.Clay. A statistical review of controlled trials of imipramine and placebo in the treatment of depressive illnesses. Br J Psychiatry1975; 127: 599–603.
47. M.L.BaumD.S.AnishT.C.ChalmersH.S.SacksH.SmithR.M.Fagerstrom. A survey of clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in colon surgery: evidence against further use of no-treatment controls. New Engl J Med1981; 305: 795–799.
48. Stjernswärd J. Personal reflections on contributions to pain relief, palliative care and global cancer control. JLL Bull. See http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/personal-reflections-on-contributions-to-pain-relief-palliative-care-and-global-cancer-control/ (2013, last checked 3 March 2016)
49. Dickersin K and Chalmers F. Thomas C Chalmers (1917–1995): a pioneer of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews. JLL Bull. See http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/thomas-c-chalmers-1917-1995/ (2014, last checked 2 March 2016)
50. J.Stjernswärd. Decreased survival related to irradiation postoperatively in early breast cancer. Lancet1974; 304: 1285–1286.
51. T.C.Chalmers. Effects of ascorbic acid on the common cold. An evaluation of the evidence. Am J Med1975; 58: 532–536.
52. S.KetyComment. In: (eds). Psychopharmacology. Problems in Evaluation, Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, Publication 583, 1959, pp. 651–652.
53. M.ClarkeJ.Godwin. Systematic reviews using individual patient data: a map for the minefields?Ann Oncol1998; 9: 827–833.
54. International Anticoagulant Review Group. Collaborative analysis of long-term anti-coagulant administration after acute myocardial infarction. Lancet1970; 1: 203–209.
55. L.StewartM.Clarke. for the Cochrane Collaboration Working Group on meta-analyses Using Individual Patient Data. Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Stat Med1995; 14: 2057–2079.
56. M.ClarkeL.StewartJ.-P.PignonL.Bijnens. Individual patient data meta-analyses in cancer. Br J Cancer1998; 77: 2036–2044.
57. Anon. Review of mortality results in randomized trials in early breast cancer. Lancet1984; 2: 1205–1205.
58. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Treatment of Early Breast Cancer. Vol 1. Worldwide Evidence, 1985–1990, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
59. S.DarbyC.DaviesP.McGaleThe Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group: a brief history of results to date. In: (eds). Celebrating Statistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 185–198.
60. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of adjuvant tamoxifen and of cytotoxic therapy on mortality in early breast cancer. an overview of 61 randomized trials among 28,896 women. New Engl J Med1988; 319: 1681–1692.
61. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet2012; 379: 432–444.
62. Varnai P, Rentel MC, Simmonds P, Sharp TA, Mostert B and de Jongh T. Assessing the research potential of access to clinical trial data. A report to the Wellcome Trust. Brighton: technopolis group. www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/msh_peda/documents/web_document/WTP058912.pdf (2015, last checked 17 Mar 2017)
63. I.ChalmersM.EnkinM.J.N.C.Keirse. Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
64. J.C.SinclairM.B.Bracken. Effective Care of the Newborn Infant, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
65. Chalmers I, ed. The Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988
66. Chalmers I. Archie Cochrane (1909–1988). JLL Bull. See http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/archie-cochrane-1909-1988/ (2016, last checked 3 March 2016)
67. A.L.Cochrane1931–1971: a critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In: (ed). Medicines for the Year 2000, London: Office of Health Economics, 1979, pp. 1–11.
68. A.L.CochraneForeword. In: (eds). Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
69. I.ChalmersK.DickersinT.C.Chalmers. Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane’s agenda. BMJ1992; 305: 786–788.
70. C.AllenK.Richmond. The Cochrane collaboration: international activity within Cochrane review groups in the first decade of the twenty-first century. J Evid Base Med2011; 4: 2–7.
71. A.BoothM.ClarkeG.DooleyD.GhersiD.MoherM.Petticrew. PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility. Syst Rev2013; 2: 4–4.
72. D.GhersiT.Pang. From Mexico to Mali: four years in the history of clinical trial registration. J Evid Base Med2009; 2: 1–7.
73. C.E.AdamsS.PolzmacherA.Wolff. Systematic reviews: work that needs to be done and not to be done. J Evid Base Med2013; 6: 232–235.
74. L.A.StewartM.ClarkeM.RoversR.D.RileyM.SimmondsG.Stewart. PRISMA-IPD Development Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA2015; 313: 1657–1665.
75. T.JeffersonM.A.JonesP.DoshiC.B.Del MarR.HamaM.J.Thompson. Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2014; 4: CD008965–CD008965.
76. A.W.Lee. Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009. J Clin Epidemiol2014; 67: 138–143.
77. B.HuttonG.SalantiD.M.CaldwellA.ChaimaniC.H.SchmidC.Cameron. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Int Med2015; 162: 777–784.
78. J.SavovićH.E.JonesD.G.AltmanR.J.HarrisP.JüniJ.Pildal. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized controlled trials. Ann Int Med2012; 157: 429–438.
79. E.S.SenaC.L.BriscoeD.W.HowellsG.A.DonnanP.A.SandercockM.R.Macleod. Factors affecting the apparent efficacy and safety of tissue plasminogen activator in thrombotic occlusion models of stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab2010; 30: 1905–1913.
80. E.S.SenaG.L.CurrieS.K.McCannM.R.MacleodD.W.Howells. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: why perform them and how to appraise them critically. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab2014; 34: 737–742.
81. G.GuyattA.D.OxmanE.A.AklR.KunzG.VistJ.Brozek. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol2011; 64: 383–394.
82. L.MurthyS.ShepperdM.J.ClarkeS.E.GarnerJ.N.LavisL.Perrier. Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2012; 9: CD009401–CD009401.
83. L.K.MaguireM.Clarke. How much do you need: a randomised experiment of whether readers can understand the key messages from summaries of Cochrane Reviews without reading the full review. J R Soc Med2014; 107: 444–449.
84. E.GargonB.GurungN.MedleyD.G.AltmanJ.M.BlazebyM.Clarke. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review. PLoS ONE2014; 9: e99111–e99111.
85. Anon. Education section – studies within a review (SWAR). J Evid Base Med2012; 5: 188–189.