Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research Methods: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Geriatric Oncology

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Geriatric Oncology

  • 121 Accesses

Abstract

Cancer is largely a disease of aging with increasing incidence with age for most malignancies and the majority of cancer patients diagnosed after age 65. At the same time, aging is associated with a progressive increase in the number of major medical comorbid conditions that may complicate the disease course and increase treatment-related complications and their adverse consequences. Unfortunately, age restrictions in clinical trials have led to limited data on the special characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes of older patients with cancer. Geriatric Oncology has emerged as a subdiscipline within oncology with a focus on clinical management and research related to cancer in the older patient. Topics in Geriatric Oncology studied in randomized or nonrandomized clinical studies including those captured in systematic evidence reviews and meta-analyses cover a broad range of subjects related to cancer in the elderly. In this chapter, the basic methodology for conducting high quality systematic reviews and evidence summaries including meta-analyses is summarized. Such studies range across areas of prevention and screening, diagnosis and staging, functional assessment including comprehensive geriatric assessment, cancer treatment, supportive care, and survivorship and end-of-life. Systematic reviews start with defining the specific question and then establishing the relevant clinical setting including the target patient population or problem, the exposure, prognostic factor or intervention, any relevant comparison(s), and clinically important outcomes. Subsequently, a rigorous explicit and transparent process of identifying, appraising, and selecting or excluding the relevant evidence is undertaken. The resulting evidence from the systematic review may then be summarized descriptively or, when appropriate, in the form of a formal meta-analysis. Later in the chapter, a summary of reported systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses related to Geriatric Oncology over the past two decades is presented and summarized. Finally, available tools for the conduct, analysis, quality appraisal, and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are provided for the reader interested in a better understanding of such systematic evidence reviews.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bland JM, Altman DG. Regression towards the mean. BMJ. 1994;308:1499.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003;326:41–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Fam Pract. 2004;21:4–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bown MJ, Sutton AJ. Quality control in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40:669–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burdett S, Stewart LA. A comparison of the results of checked versus unchecked individual patient data meta-analyses. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:619–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, et al. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:697–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • CEBM. Critical appraisal tools. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deeks J. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman D, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001b;323:157–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Earle CC, Pham B, Wells GA. An assessment of methods to combine published survival curves. Med Decis Mak. 2000;20:104–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, et al., editors. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elamin MB, Flynn DN, Bassler D, et al. Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:506–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming PS, Koletsi D, Pandis N. Blinded by PRISMA: are systematic reviewers focusing on PRISMA and ignoring other guidelines? PLoS One. 2014;9:e96407.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Horton J, Vandermeer B, Hartling L, et al. Systematic review data extraction: cross-sectional study showed that experience did not increase accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:289–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kho ME, Eva KW, Cook DJ, et al. The completeness of reporting (CORE) index identifies important deficiencies in observational study conference abstracts. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:1241–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999;282:1061–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lyman GH, Kuderer NM. The strengths and limitations of meta-analyses based on aggregate data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. 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, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Olkin I, Sampson A. Comparison of meta-analysis versus analysis of variance of individual patient data. Biometrics. 1998;54:317–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123:A12–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg KK, Smith SJ, Stroup DF, et al. Comparison of effect estimates from a meta-analysis of summary data from published studies and from a meta-analysis using individual patient data for ovarian cancer studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145:917–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sylvester R, Collette L, Duchateau L. The role of meta-analyses in assessing cancer treatments. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:1351–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney JF, Clarke M, Stewart LA. Is there bias in the publication of individual patient data meta-analyses? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:657–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tudur C, Williamson PR, Khan S, et al. The value of the aggregate data approach in meta-analysis with time-to-event outcomes. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc. 2001;164:357–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamvakas EC. Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests: a review of the concepts and methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:675–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology. 2007;18:805–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Viswanathan M, Ansari MT, Berkman ND, et al. Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care. Rockville; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology. 2007;18:800–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, et al. Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.

    Article  PubMed  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 

  • Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2015;8:2–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Gary H. Lyman & Marek S. Poniewierski

  2. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Gary H. Lyman

Authors
  1. Gary H. Lyman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marek S. Poniewierski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary H. Lyman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Senior Adult Oncology Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA

    Martine Extermann

Section Editor information

  1. Research Center on Aging, Department of Medicine, Immunology Graduate Programme, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada

    Tamas Fulop

  2. Moffitt Cancer Center, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Martine Extermann Md, PhD

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Lyman, G.H., Poniewierski, M.S. (2018). Research Methods: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Geriatric Oncology. In: Extermann, M. (eds) Geriatric Oncology . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44870-1_9-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44870-1_9-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44870-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44870-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation