Performing Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- 63 Downloads
Health care professionals are increasingly required to base their practice on the best available evidence. After a literature search on a specific clinical question, many articles may be retrieved. The quality of the studies may be variable, and the individual studies might have produced conflicting results. It is therefore important that health care decisions are not based solely on one or two studies without account being taken of the whole range of research information available on that topic.
Systematic reviews have rapidly gained an important place in aiding clinical decision-making in medicine, although dentistry has been a little slower to adopt this approach. Systematic reviews are themselves considered a research activity, although the data are derived from primary studies in the area of interest rather than from direct experimentation.
- Armstrong EC. The well-built clinical question: the key to finding the best evidence efficiently. Wis Med J. 1999;98:25–8.Google Scholar
- Bassler D, Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Briel M, Cook DJ, Devereaux PJ, Heels-Ansdell D, Kirpalani H, Meade MO, Montori VM, Rozenberg A, Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Systematic reviewers neglect bias that results from trials stopped early for benefit. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:869–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bergerhoff K, Ebrahim S, Paletta G. Do we need to consider ‘in process citations’ for search strategies? In: 12th Cochrane colloquium in Ottawa, Ontario; 2004. p. 126.Google Scholar
- Den Hartog L, Slater JJ, Vissink A, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM. Treatment outcome of immediate, early and conventional single-tooth implants in the aesthetic zone: a systematic review to survival, bone level, soft-tissue, aesthetics and patient satisfaction. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35:1073-86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sullivan BM. EBP@NUHS Ch 2: asking a good clinical question using the structured PICO format. 2008:2.3. http://www.nuhs.edu/media/25458/studyguide-constructingsearchableclinicalquestion.pdf
- Faggion CM Jr, Listl S, Giannakopoulos NN. The methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies in dentistry. Vet J. 2012;192:140–147.Google Scholar
- Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. 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.
- Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. 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.
- 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.
- Hopewell S, Clarke M, Lefebvre C, Scherer R. Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000001.Google Scholar
- Horsley T, Dingwall O, Sampson M. Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(8):MR000026.Google Scholar
- Law M. Evidence-based rehabilitation: a guide to practice. Thoroughfare: Slack Inc; 2002.Google Scholar
- Lohsoonthorn V, Kungsadalpipob K, Chanchareonsook P, Limpongsanurak S, Vanichjakvong O, Sutdhibhisal S, Sookprome C, Wongkittikraiwan N, Kamolpornwijit W, Jantarasaengaram S, Manotaya S, Siwawej V, Barlow WE, Fitzpatrick AL, Williams MA. Maternal periodontal disease and risk of preeclampsia: a case–control study. Am J Hypertens. 2009;22:457–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lutje V, MacLehose H, Garner P. Editorial strategy for revising Cochrane reviews: does it help? In: 13th Cochrane colloquium in Melbourne; 2005. p. 153.Google Scholar
- Macones GA, Parry S, Nelson DB, Strauss JF, Ludmir J, Cohen AW, Stamilio DM, Appleby D, Clothier B, Sammel MD, Jeffcoat M. Treatment of localized periodontal disease in pregnancy does not reduce the occurrence of preterm birth: results from the Periodontal Infections and Prematurity Study (PIPS). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:147.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, Barrowman N. When and how to update systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1):MR000023.Google Scholar
- National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National call to action to promote oral health in America: a report of the surgeon general. 2003. Available at: www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/oralhealth/nationalcalltoaction.htm. Accessed July 2011.
- Offenbacher S, Beck JD, Jared HL, Mauriello SM, Mendoza LC, Couper DJ, Stewart DD, Murtha AP, Cochran DL, Dudley DJ, Reddy MS, Geurs NC, Hauth JC, Maternal Oral Therapy to Reduce Obstetric Risk (MOTOR) Investigators. Effects of periodontal therapy on rate of preterm delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:551–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Oliveira AM, de Oliveira PA, Cota LO, Magalhães CS, Moreira AN, Costa FO. Periodontal therapy and risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Clin Oral Investig. 2010. doi: 10.1007/s00784-010-0424-8.
- Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271e8.Google Scholar
- Pai M, McCulloch M, Gorman JD, Pai N, Enanoria W, Kennedy G, Tharyan P, Colford JM Jr. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an illustrated, step-by-step guide. Natl Med J India. 2004;17:86–95.Google Scholar
- Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Sykora K et al. Reader’s guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 1. Role and design. BMJ 2005;330:895–7.Google Scholar
- Sackett DL. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh/New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2000, xiv, 261.Google Scholar
- Scherer S, Smith MB. Teaching evidence-based practice in academic and clinical settings. Cardiopulm Phys Ther. 2002;13:23.Google Scholar
- Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Garritty C, Rader T, Moher D. Updating systematic reviews. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2007b. Report No.: 07–0087.Google Scholar
- The Cochrane Collaboration. Maintaining your review. The Cochrane Collaboration open learning material; 2002. Module 19.Google Scholar
- Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. University of Ottawa. 2001. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm. Accessed 17 Oct 2011.
- West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SF, Lux L. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence, evidence report, Technology Assessment No. 47. AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016. Rockville: Agency for Health Care Research and Quality; 2002. www.thecre.com/pdf/ahrq-system-strength.pdf.
- Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB; Hedges Team. Robustness of empirical search strategies for clinical content in MEDLINE. Proc AMIA Symp. 2002:904–8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12463956