Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Pharmacy Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pharmacy Practice Research Methods

Abstract

A systematic review is a process of synthesizing research evidence by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that meets predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Systematic reviews are performed by using systematic methods and often include a meta-analysis component which involves statistical techniques to conduct quantitative synthesis. Pharmacists from different regions of the world and practices—such as academia, hospital, and community—are increasingly using this approach to produce evidence about their new services and interventions, comparing them with services provided by other healthcare professionals or with control groups. This chapter covers the inception of a systematic approach to reviews and their use in pharmacy practice. The quality associated with systematic reviews and meta-analyses are discussed. A quick guide outlines the important steps in conducting a systematic review, and some of the models used in the reporting of meta-analyses—such as direct and indirect evidence models and pooling effect sizes—are introduced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

CINAHL:

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature

EBP:

Evidence-based practice

EMBASE:

Excerpta Medica Database

GRADE:

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations

IPA:

International Pharmaceutical Abstracts

MA:

Meta-analysis

NICE:

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

OR:

Odds ratio

PICO:

Patient, intervention, comparison, outcome

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

QUAROM:

Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

RR:

[Relative] Risk ratio

SIGN:

Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network

SR:

Systematic review

References

  • Ahn EJ, Kang H. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018;71(2):103–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Babar ZU, Kousar R, Hasan SS, Scahill S, Curley LE. Glycemic control through pharmaceutical care: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Pharm Health Serv Res. 2019;10(1):35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(6):683–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carter BL, Rogers M, Daly J, Zheng S, James PA. The potency of team-based care interventions for hypertension: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1748–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers I. The James Lind initiative. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(12):575–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane Consumer Network. What is a systematic review? 2019. Available from: https://consumers.cochrane.org/what-systematic-review.

  • Collins Dictionary. Definition of ‘review’. 2019. Available from: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/review.

  • Debray TP, Moons KG, Abo-Zaid GM, Koffijberg H, Riley RD. Individual participant data meta-analysis for a binary outcome: one-stage or two-stage? PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60650.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkers M. Introducing GRADE: a systematic approach to rating evidence in systematic reviews and to guideline development. Knowl Translat Update. 2013;1:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doi SAR, Barendregt JJ. Meta-analysis I: computational methods. In: Doi, Williams, editors. Methods of clinical epidemiology. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Publishing; 2013. p. 229–52.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Doi SA, Barendregt JJ, Khan S, Thalib L, Williams GM. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: the inverse variance heterogeneity model. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;45(Pt A):130–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Doi SA, Thalib L. A quality-effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology. 2008;19(1):94–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services. Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews. 2019. Available from: https://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Suggested%20risk%20of%20bias%20criteria%20for%20EPOC%20reviews.pdf.

  • Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hasan SS, Zaidi STR, Nirwan JS, Ghori MU, Javid F, Ahmadi K, Babar ZD. Use of central nervous system (CNS) medicines in aged care homes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2019;8:1292.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane statistical methods group and the Cochrane Bias methods group. 2011. Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_8/8_assessing_risk_of_bias_in_included_studies.htm.

  • Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane. 2019. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

  • Holland R, Desbororough J, Goodyer L, Hall S, Wright D, Loke YK. Does pharmacist-led medication review help to reduce hospital admissions and deaths in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;65(3):303–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kang H. Statistical considerations in meta-analysis. Hanyang Med Rev. 2015;35:23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao LS, Tyson JE, Blakely ML, Lally KP. Clinical research methodology I: introduction to randomized trials. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(2):361–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Melchiors AC, Correr CJ, Venson R, Pontarolo R. An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34:32–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Naghavi M. Global, regional, and national burden of suicide mortality 1990 to 2016: systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. BMJ. 2019;364:194.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Methodology checklist 3: cohort studies. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: Scotland, Edinburgh; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). Available from http://www.healthdata.org/gbd/faq#What%20is%20an%20uncertainty%20interval? Accessed 06 Dec 2019.

  • Thomas PAD, Moons KGM, van Valkenhoef G, Orestis E, Hummel N, Rolf GHH, Johannes RB, on behalf of the GetReal Methods Review Group. Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Res Synth Methods. 2015;6(4):293–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uman LS. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;20(1):57–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Willis BH, Quigley M. The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:163.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Woolf B. On estimating the relation between blood group and disease. Ann Hum Genet. 1955;19:251–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Keivan Ahmadi from Lincoln Medical School (UK) for providing constructed feedback on meta-analysis component.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK

    Syed Shahzad Hasan & Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

  2. School of Biomedical Sciences & Pharmacy, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

    Therese Kairuz & Kaeshaelya Thiruchelvam

Authors
  1. Syed Shahzad Hasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Therese Kairuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kaeshaelya Thiruchelvam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK

    Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hasan, S.S., Kairuz, T., Thiruchelvam, K., Babar, ZUD. (2020). Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Pharmacy Practice. In: Babar, ZUD. (eds) Pharmacy Practice Research Methods. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2993-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2993-1_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-2992-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-2993-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation