Advertisement

Primer on Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Marcello TonelliEmail author
  • Dan Hackam
  • Amit X. Garg
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology™ book series (MIMB, volume 473)

Abstract

A systematic review uses an explicitly defined process to comprehensively identify all studies pertaining to a specific focused question, appraise the methods of the studies, summarize the results, identify reasons for different findings across studies, and cite limitations of current knowledge. Meta-analyses usually combine aggregate-level data reported in each primary study, which may provide a more precise estimate of the “true effect” than any individual study. However, the conclusions may be limited by between-trial heterogeneity, publication bias, or deficits in the conduct or reporting of individual primary studies.

Keywords

Systematic review meta-analysis randomized controlled trials study heterogeneity publication bias 

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. National Library of Medicine Fact Sheet Medline. Available at www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/medline.html, last accessed March 3, 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    2. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005) Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294, 218–228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    3. Garg, A. X., Iansavichus, A. V., Kastner, M., Walters, L. A., Wilczynski, N., McKibbon, K. A., Yang, R. C., Rehman, F., Haynes, R. B. (2006) Lost in publication: Half of all renal practice evidence is published in non-renal journals. Kidney Int 70, 1995–2005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    4. Haynes, R. B., Cotoi, C., Holland, J., Walters, L., Wilczynski, N., Jedraszewski, D., McKinlay, J., Parrish, R., McKibbon, K. A. (2006) Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners. JAMA 295, 1801–1808.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    5. Barrett, B. J., Parfrey, P. S. (2006) Clinical practice. Preventing nephropathy induced by contrast medium. N Engl J Med 354, 379–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    6. Halloran, P. F. (2004) Immunosuppressive drugs for kidney transplantation. N Engl J Med 351, 2715–2729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    7. Schrier, R. W., Wang, W. (2004) Acute renal failure and sepsis. N Engl J Med 351, 159–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    8. Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., Haynes, R. B. (1997) Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 126, 376–380.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    9. Oxman, A. D., Cook, D. J., Guyatt, G. H., Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. (1994) Users' guides to the medical literature, VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 272, 1367–1371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    10. Lewis, S., Clarke, M. (2001) Forest plots: Trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ 322, 1479–1480.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    11. Lyman, G. H., Kuderer, N. M. (2005) The strengths and limitations of meta-analyses based on aggregate data. BMC Res Methodol 5, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    12. Simmonds, M. C., Higgins, J. P., Stewart, L. A., Tierney, J. F., Clarke, M., J., Thompson, S. G. (2005) Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: A review of methods used in practice. Clin Trials 2, 209–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    13. Schmid, C. H., Landa, M., Jafar, T. H., Giatras, I., Karim, T., Reddy, M., Stark, P. C., Levey, A.S. (2003) Constructing a database of individual clinical trials for longitudinal analysis. Control Clin Trials 24, 324–340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    14. Schmid, C. H., Stark, P. C., Berlin, J. A., Landais, P., Lau, J. (2004) Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. J Clin Epidemiol 57, 683–697.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    15. Fouque, D., Laville, M., Haugh, M., Boissel, J. P. (1996) Systematic reviews and their roles in promoting evidence-based medicine in renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 11, 2398–2401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    16. Campbell, M. K., Daly, C., Wallace, S. A., Cody, D. J., Donaldson, C., Grant, A. M., Khan, I. H., Lawrence, P., Vale, L., MacLeod, A. M. (2000) Evidence-based medicine in nephrology: Identifying and critically appraising the literature. Nephrol Dial Transplant 15, 1950–1955.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cochrane Collaboration—. Available at www.cochrane.org/index.htm., last accessed March 3, 2007.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    18. Blettner, M., Sauerbrei, W., Schlehofer, B., Scheuchenpflug, T., Friedenreich, C. (1999) Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 28, 1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    19. Haynes, R. B., Devereaux, P. J., Guyatt, G. H. (2002) Physicians' and patients' choices in evidence based practice. BMJ 324, 1350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    20. Fones, C. S., Kua, E. H., Goh, L. G. (1998) What makes a good doctor? views of the medical profession and the public in setting priorities for medical education. Singapore Med J 39, 537–542.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    21. Sterne, J. A., Egger, M., Smith, G. D. (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 323, 101–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    22. Simes, R. J. (1987) Confronting publication bias: A cohort design for meta-analysis. Stat Med 6, 11–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    23. Easterbrook, P. J., Berlin, J. A., Gopalan, R., Matthews, D. R. (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337, 867–872.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    24. Egger, M., Smith, G. D. (1998) Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 316, 61–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    25. Dickersin, K., Min, Y. I., Meinert, C. L. (1992) Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 267, 374–378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    26. Stern, J. M., Simes, R. J. (1997) Publication bias: Evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 315, 640–645.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    27. Pogue, J., Yusuf, S. (1998) Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 351, 47–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    28. Giatras, I., Lau, J., Levey, A. S., Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibition and Progressive Renal Disease Study Group. (1997) Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on the progression of nondiabetic renal disease: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 127, 337–345.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    29. Guyatt, G., Gutterman, D., Baumann, M. H., Addrizzo-Harris, D., Hylek, E. M., Phillips, B., Raskob, G., Lewis, S. Z., Schunemann, H. (2006) Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: Report from an American College of Chest Physicians task force. Chest 129, 174–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    30. Anello, C., Fleiss, J. L. (1995) Exploratory or analytic meta-analysis: Should we distinguish between them? J Clin Epidemiol. 48, 109–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    31. Boudville, N., Prasad, G. V., Knoll, G., Muirhead, N., Thiessen-Philbrook, H., Yang, R. C., Rosas-Arellano, M. P., Housawi, A., Garg, A. X. (2006) Meta-analysis: Risk for hypertension in living kidney donors. Ann Intern Med 145, 185–196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    32. LeLorier, J., Gregoire, G., Benhaddad, A., Lapierre, J., Derderian, F. (1997) Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 337, 536–542.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    33. Hackam, D. G., Redelmeier, D. A. (2006) Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. JAMA 296, 1731–1732.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    34. Thompson, S. G., Higgins, J. P. (2002) How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21, 1559–1573.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    35. Colditz, G. A., Brewer, T. F., Berkey, C. S., Wilson, M. E., Burdick, E., Fineberg, H. V., Mosteller, F. (1994) Efficacy of BCG vaccine in the prevention of tuberculosis. Meta-analysis of the published literature. JAMA 271, 698–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    36. Palma, S., Delgado-Rodriguez, M. (2005) Assessment of publication bias in meta-analyses of cardiovascular diseases. J Epidemiol.Community Health 59, 864–869.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    37. Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P., Schmid, C. H. (1998) Summing up evidence: One answer is not always enough. Lancet 351, 123–127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    38. Thompson, S. G. (1994) Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ 309, 1351–1355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    39. Berlin, J. A. (1995) Invited commentary: Benefits of heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemio. 142, 383–387.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    40. Davey, S. G., Egger, M., Phillips, A. N. (1997) Meta-analysis. Beyond the grand mean? BMJ 315, 1610–1614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    41. Thompson, S. G., Higgins, J. P. (2005) Treating individuals, 4: Can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Lancet 365, 341–346.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    42. Yusuf, S. (1997) Meta-analysis of randomized trials: Looking back and looking ahead. Control Clin Trials 18, 594–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    43. Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., Stroup, D. F. (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM [Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses] statement. Lancet 354, 1896–1900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    44. Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., Olkin, I., Williamson, G. D., Rennie, D., Moher, D., Becker, B. J., Sipe, T. A., Thacker, S. B., Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. JAMA 283, 2008–2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    45. Choi, P. T., Halpern, S. H., Malik, N., Jadad, A. R., Tramer, M. R., Walder, B. (2001) Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: A critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg 92, 700–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    46. Dixon, E., Hameed, M., Sutherland, F., Cook, D. J., Doig, C. (2005) Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: A critical appraisal. Ann Surg 241, 450–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    47. Kelly, K. D., Travers, A., Dorgan, M., Slater, L., Rowe, B. H. (2001) Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg. Med 38, 518–526.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    48. Sacks, H. S., Reitman, D., Pagano, D., Kupelnick, B. (1996) Meta-analysis: An update. Mt. Sinai J Med 63, 216–224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    49. Assendelft, W. J., Koes, B. W., Knipschild, P. G., Bouter, L. M. (1995) The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation. JAMA 274, 1942–1948.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    50. Jadad, A. R., McQuay, H. J. (1996) Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: A systematic qualitative review of their methodology. J Clin Epidemiol. 49, 235–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    51. Jadad, A. R., Cook, D. J., Jones, A., Klassen, T. P., Tugwell, P., Moher, M., Moher, D. (1998) Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 280, 278–280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    52. Bero, L. A., Rennie, D. (1996) Influences on the quality of published drug studies. Int J Technol. Assess. Health Care 12, 209–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    53. Barnes, D. E., Bero, L. A. (1998) Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 279, 1566–1570.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    54. Jadad, A. R., Moher, M., Browman, G. P., Booker, L., Sigouin, C., Fuentes, M., Stevens, R. (2000) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: Critical evaluation. BMJ 320, 537–540.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    55. Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., Cook, D. J., Jadad, A. R., Moher, M., Tugwell, P., Klassen, T. P. (1998) Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352, 609–613.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mrkobrada, M., Thiessen-Philbrook, H., Haynes, R. B., Iansavichus, A. V., Rehman, F., Garg, A. X. (2007) Improving the quality of renal systematic reviews. Submitted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    57. Jorgensen, A. W., Hilden, J., Gotzsche, P. C. (2006) Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: Systematic review. BMJ 333, 782.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    58. Katerndahl, D. A., Lawler, W. R. (1999) Variability in meta-analytic results concerning the value of cholesterol reduction in coronary heart disease: A meta-meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 149, 429–441.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    59. Counsell, C. (1997) Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 127, 380–387.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    60. Vickers, A., Goyal, N., Harland, R., Rees, R. (1998) Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials 19, 159–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    61. Gregoire, G., Derderian, F., Le Lorier, J. (1995) Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a Tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol. 48, 159–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    62. Egger, M., Zellweger-Zahner, T., Schneider, M., Junker, C., Lengeler, C., Antes, G. (1997) Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 350, 326–329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    63. Moher, D., Pham, B., Klassen, T. P., Schulz, K. F., Berlin, J. A., Jadad, A. R., Liberati, A. (2000) What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol. 53, 964–972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    64. Juni, P., Holenstein, F., Sterne, J., Bartlett, C., Egger, M. (2002) Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: Empirical study. Int J Epidemiol. 31, 115–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    65. Casas, J. P., Chua, W., Loukogeorgakis, S., Vallance, P., Smeeth, L., Hingorani, A. D., MacAllister, R. J. (2005) Effect of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system and other antihypertensive drugs on renal outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 366, 2026–2033.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    66. Strippoli, G. F., Craig, M. C., Schena, F. P., Craig, J. C. (2006) Role of blood pressure targets and specific antihypertensive agents used to prevent diabetic nephropathy and delay its progression. J Am Soc Nephrol 17, S153–S155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    67. Subramanian, S., Venkataraman, R., Kellum, J. A. (2002) Influence of dialysis membranes on outcomes in acute renal failure: A meta-analysis. Kidney Int 62, 1819–1823.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    68. Jaber, B. L., Lau, J., Schmid, C. H., Karsou, S. A., Levey, A. S., Pereira, B. J. (2002) Effect of biocompatibility of hemodialysis membranes on mortality in acute renal failure: A meta-analysis. Clin Nephrol 57, 274–282.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    69. Teehan, G. S., Liangos, O., Lau, J., Levey, A. S., Pereira, B. J., Jaber, B. L. (2003) Dialysis membrane and modality in acute renal failure: Understanding discordant meta-analyses. Semin. Dial 16, 356–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    70. Dickersin, K., Scherer, R., Lefebvre, C. (1994) Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 309, 1286–1291.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    71. Suarez-Almazor, M. E., Belseck, E., Homik, J., Dorgan, M., Ramos-Remus, C. (2000) Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials 21, 76–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    72. Topfer, L. A., Parada, A., Menon, D., Noorani, H., Perras, C., Serra-Prat, M. (1999) Comparison of literature searches on quality and costs for health technology assessment using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 15, 297–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    73. Minozzi, S., Pistotti, V., Forni, M. (2000) Searching for rehabilitation articles on MEDLINE and EMBASE. An example with cross-over design. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81, 720–722.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Embase DataStar Datasheets. Available at http://ds.datastarweb.com/ds/products/datastar/sheets/emed.htm, last accessed March 3, 2007.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    75. Cheema, B. S., Singh, M. A. (2005) Exercise training in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis: A systematic review of clinical trials. Am J Nephrol 25, 352–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    76. Clarke, K. S., Klarenbach, S., Vlaicu, S., Yang, R. C., Garg, A. X. (2006) The direct and indirect economic costs incurred by living kidney donors—a systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant 21, 1952–1960.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    77. Steinbrook, R. (2006) Searching for the right search—reaching the medical literature. N Engl J Med 354, 4–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Wilczynski, N. L., Haynes, R. B. (2002) Robustness of empirical search strategies for clinical content in MEDLINE. Proc. AMIA. Symp., 904–908.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Wilczynski, N. L., Walker, C. J., McKibbon, K. A., Haynes, R. B. (1995) Reasons for the loss of sensitivity and specificity of methodologic MeSH terms and textwords in MEDLINE. Pro. Ann Symp Comput Appl Med Care, 436–440.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    80. Edwards, P., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Roberts, I., Wentz, R. (2002) Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: Accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med 21, 1635–1640.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    81. Davidson, R. A. (1986) Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen.Intern Med 1, 155–158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    82. Rochon, P. A., Gurwitz, J. H., Simms, R. W., Fortin, P. R., Felson, D. T., Minaker, K. L., Chalmers, T. C. (1994) A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med 154, 157–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    83. Biondi-Zoccai, G. G., 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    84. Egger, M., Davey, S. G., Schneider, M., Minder, C. (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315, 629–634.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    85. Sutton, A. J., et al. (2000) BMJ 320, 1574–1577.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    86. Berlin, J. A., University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. (1997) Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? Lancet 350, 185–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    87. Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J., Gavaghan, D. J., McQuay, H. J. (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17, 1–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    88. Balk, E. M., Bonis, P. A., Moskowitz, H., Schmid, C. H., Ioannidis, J. P., Wang, C., Lau, J. (2002) Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 287, 2973–2982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    89. Balk, E. M., Lau, J., Bonis, P. A. (2005) Reading and critically appraising systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A short primer with a focus on hepatology. J Hepatol 43, 729–736.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    90. Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Jadad, A. R., Tugwell, P., Moher, M., Jones, A., Pham, B., Klassen, T. P. (1999) Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: Implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess 3, 1–98.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    91. Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C., de Bie, R. A., Boers, M., van den Brandt, P. A. (2001) The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 54, 651–654.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    92. Juni, P., Altman, D. G., Egger, M. (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 323, 42–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    93. Devereaux, P. J., Choi, P. T., El Dika, S., Bhandari, M., Montori, V. M., Schunemann, H. J., Garg, A. X., Busse, J. W., Heels-Ansdell, D., Ghali, W. A., Manns, B. J., Guyatt, G. H. (2004) An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 57, 1232–1236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    94. Moher, D., Jadad, A.R., Nichol, G., Penman, M., Tugwell, P., Walsh, S. (1995) Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 16, 62–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    95. Schulz, K. F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R. J., Altman, D. G. (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273, 408–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    96. Laupacis, A., Wells, G., Richardson, W. S., Tugwell, P., Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. (1994) Users' guides to the medical literature, V. How to use an article about prognosis. JAMA 272, 234–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    97. Garg, A. X., Suri, R. S., Barrowman, N., Rehman, F., Matsell, D., Rosas-Arellano, M. P., Salvadori, M, Haynes, R. B., Clark, W. F. (2003) Long-term renal prognosis of diarrhea-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. JAMA 290, 1360–1370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    98. Deeks, J. J. (2002) Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 21, 1575–1600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    99. DerSimonian, R., Laird, N. (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7, 177–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    100. Hardy, R. J., Thompson, S. G. (1998) Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 17, 841–856.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    101. Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G. (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21, 1539–1558.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmonton, AlbertaCanada
  2. 2.Division of Clinical Pharmacology and ToxicologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of MedicineUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations