‘If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants’ Isaac Newton
However, despite their major strengths, systematic reviews and meta-analyses may, like any other analytical research tool, have signifi cant weaknesses, especially when applied to a challenging topic such as adverse events after contrast agents. Nonetheless, adverse reactions following administration of contrast media are an ideal subject for systematic review because of their diversity and low incidence rates (Fig. 6.2).
The aim of this chapter is to provide a concise but sound framework to assist the critical reading of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, with particular focus on adverse events after contrast agents.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration (2002) Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ 324:71–86
Aspelin P, Aubry P, Fransson SG, Strasser R, Willenbrock R, Berg KJ (2003) Nephrotoxic effects in high-risk patients undergoing angiography. N Engl J Med 348:491–499
Barnes DE, Bero LA (1998) Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 297:1566–1570
Biondi-Zoccai GG, Abbate A, Agostoni P, Testa L, Burzotta F, Lotrionte M, Trani C, Biasucci LM (2005) Long-term benefits of an early invasive management in acute coronary syndromes depend on intracoronary stenting and aggressive antiplatelet treatment: a metaregression. Am Heart J 149:504–511
Biondi-Zoccai GG, Agostoni P, Abbate A (2003). Parallel hierarchy of scientific studies in cardiovascular medicine. Ital Heart J 4:819–820
Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, Burzotta F, Valgimigli M, Romagnoli E, Crea F, Agostoni P (2006) Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ 332:202–209
Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Anselmino M, Moretti C, Agostoni P, Testa L, Abbate A, Cosgrave J, Laudito A, Trevi G P, Sheiban I (2008). Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials appraising the impact of cilostazol after percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J 155:1081–1089
Biondi-Zoccai GG, Testa L, Agostoni P (2004) A practical algorithm for systematic reviews in cardiovascular medicine. Ital Heart J 5:486–487
Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD (1997) The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 50:683–689
Cappelleri JC, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH, de Ferranti SD, Aubert M, Chalmers TC, Lau J (1996) Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare? JAMA 276:1332–1338
Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, 2nd edn. BMJ Publishing Group, London
Glass G (1976) Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 5:3–8
Golder S, Loke Y, McIntosh HM (2006) Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:3
Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook D (2002) Users’ guides to the medical literature. A manual for evidence-based clinical practice. AMA, Chicago
Higgins J P, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560
Higgins JPT, Green S (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford
Lau J, Ioannidis J P, Schmid CH (1998) Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet 351:123–127
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUORUM statement. Lancet 354:1896–1900
Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L (2006) Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA 295:676–680
Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, Ramsay T, Bai A, Shukla VK, Grimshaw JM (2007) External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS ONE 2(12):e1350
Solomon RJ, Natarajan MK, Doucet S, Sharma SK, Staniloae CS, Katholi RE, Gelormini JL, Labinaz M, Moreyra AE (2007) Cardiac Angiography in Renally Impaired Patients (CARE) study: a randomized double-blind trial of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with chronic kidney disease. Circulation 115:3189–3196
Thompson SG, Higgins JP (2002) How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21:1559–1573
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Biondi-Zoccai, G., Lotrionte, M. (2009). A Critical Review of Meta-Analysis of Adverse Events After Contrast Agents. In: Thomsen, H.S., Webb, J.A.W. (eds) Contrast Media. Medical Radiology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72784-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72784-2_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-72783-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-72784-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)