Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in regional anesthesia and pain medicine (Part II): guidelines for performing the systematic review

被引:11
作者
Sen, Ananda
机构
[1] Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Rochester, MN
[2] Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Pain Medicine, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR
[3] Department of Biostatistics and Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
[4] Department of Quantitative Health Sciences and Outcomes Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
[5] Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV
关键词
TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; ADDUCTOR CANAL BLOCK; IPACK BLOCK; ANALGESIC EFFICACY; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; RANDOMIZED-TRIALS; POPLITEAL ARTERY; HEALTH-CARE; NETWORK; HETEROGENEITY;
D O I
10.1213/ANE.0000000000006607
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
In Part I of this series, we provide guidance for preparing a systematic review protocol. In this article, we highlight important steps and supplement with exemplars on conducting and reporting the results of a systematic review. We suggest how authors can manage protocol violations, multiplicity of outcomes and analyses, and heterogeneity. The quality (certainty) of the evidence and strength of recommendations should follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. It is our goal that Part II of this series provides valid guidance to authors and peer reviewers who conduct systematic reviews to adhere to important constructs of transparency, structure, reproducibility, and accountability. This will likely result in more rigorous systematic reviews being submitted for publication to the journals like Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine and Anesthesia & Analgesia.
引用
收藏
页码:395 / 419
页数:25
相关论文
共 88 条
[1]   Regional anaesthesia to prevent chronic pain after surgery: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Andreae, M. H. ;
Andreae, D. A. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2013, 111 (05) :711-720
[2]   A new approach to outliers in meta-analysis [J].
Baker, Rose ;
Jackson, Dan .
HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2008, 11 (02) :121-131
[3]   Understanding heterogeneity in meta-analysis: the role of meta-regression [J].
Baker, W. L. ;
White, C. Michael ;
Cappelleri, J. C. ;
Kluger, J. ;
Coleman, C. I. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2009, 63 (10) :1426-1434
[4]  
Barrington M., Reg Anesth Pain Med
[5]   OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF A BANK CORRELATION TEST FOR PUBLICATION BIAS [J].
BEGG, CB ;
MAZUMDAR, M .
BIOMETRICS, 1994, 50 (04) :1088-1101
[6]   Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews [J].
Bender, Ralf ;
Bunce, Catey ;
Clarke, Mike ;
Gates, Simon ;
Lange, Stefan ;
Pace, Nathan L. ;
Thorlund, Kristian .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 61 (09) :857-865
[7]  
Boutron I, 2022, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 63
[8]   Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline [J].
Campbell, Mhairi ;
McKenzie, Joanne E. ;
Sowden, Amanda ;
Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal ;
Brennan, Sue E. ;
Ellis, Simon ;
Hartmann-Boyce, Jamie ;
Ryan, Rebecca ;
Shepperd, Sasha ;
Thomas, James ;
Welch, Vivian ;
Thomson, Hilary .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2020, 368
[9]  
Chaimani A, 2022, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3
[10]   Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials -: Comparison of Protocols to published articles [J].
Chan, AW ;
Hróbjartsson, A ;
Haahr, MT ;
Gotzsche, PC ;
Altman, DG .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 291 (20) :2457-2465