Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in regional anesthesia and pain medicine (Part I): guidelines for preparing the review protocol

被引:9
作者
Barrington, Michael J. [1 ,6 ]
D'Souza, Ryan S. [2 ]
Mascha, Edward J. [3 ]
Narouze, Samer [4 ]
Kelley, George A. [5 ]
机构
[1] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Dept Anesthesia & Perioperat Pain Med, Portland, OR USA
[2] Mayo Clin Hosp, Dept Anesthesiol & Perioperat Med, Rochester, MN USA
[3] Cleveland Clin, Dept Quantitat Hlth Sci & Outcomes Res, Cleveland, OH USA
[4] Western Reserve Hosp, Ctr Pain Med, Cuyahoga Falls, OH USA
[5] West Virginia Univ, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, Morgantown, WV USA
[6] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Dept Anesthesia & Perioperat Pain Med, Portland, OR 97239 USA
关键词
EDUCATION; Anesthesia; Local; TECHNOLOGY; RANDOM-EFFECTS MODEL; CLINICAL-TRIALS; HEALTH-CARE; HETEROGENEITY; QUALITY; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1136/rapm-2023-104801
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework-participants (P), interventions (I),comparators (C), outcomes (O)-and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves.
引用
收藏
页码:391 / 402
页数:12
相关论文
共 73 条
  • [1] Understanding heterogeneity in meta-analysis: the role of meta-regression
    Baker, W. L.
    White, C. Michael
    Cappelleri, J. C.
    Kluger, J.
    Coleman, C. I.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2009, 63 (10) : 1426 - 1434
  • [2] GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
    Balshem, Howard
    Helfand, Mark
    Schuenemann, Holger J.
    Oxman, Andrew D.
    Kunz, Regina
    Brozek, Jan
    Vist, Gunn E.
    Falck-Ytter, Yngve
    Meerpohl, Joerg
    Norris, Susan
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 64 (04) : 401 - 406
  • [3] Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews
    Bender, Ralf
    Bunce, Catey
    Clarke, Mike
    Gates, Simon
    Lange, Stefan
    Pace, Nathan L.
    Thorlund, Kristian
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 61 (09) : 857 - 865
  • [4] Biggerstaff BJ, 1997, STAT MED, V16, P753, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970415)16:7<753::AID-SIM494>3.0.CO
  • [5] 2-G
  • [6] A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis
    Borenstein, Michael
    Hedges, Larry V.
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    Rothstein, Hannah R.
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2010, 1 (02) : 97 - 111
  • [7] Boutron I., 2022, COCHRANE HDB SYSTEMA
  • [8] Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study
    Bramer, Wichor M.
    Rethlefsen, Melissa L.
    Kleijnen, Jos
    Franco, Oscar H.
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, 6
  • [9] Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline
    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
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2020, 368
  • [10] Femoral nerve blocks for acute postoperative pain after knee replacement surgery
    Chan, Ee-Yuee
    Fransen, Marlene
    Parker, David A.
    Assam, Pryseley N.
    Chua, Nelson
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2014, (05):