Systematic review and meta-analysis: techniques and a guide for the academic surgeon

被引:138
作者
Phan, Kevin [1 ]
Tian, David H. [1 ]
Cao, Christopher [1 ]
Black, Deborah [2 ]
Yan, Tristan D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Macquarie Univ, Collaborat Res CORE Grp, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Univ Sydney, Fac Hlth Sci, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
Systematic review; meta-analysis; surgery; outcomes; forest plot; network meta-analysis; meta-regression;
D O I
10.3978/j.issn.2225-319X.2015.02.04
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
With the rapidly growing literature across the surgical disciplines, there is a corresponding need to critically appraise and summarize the currently available evidence so they can be applied appropriately to patient care. The interpretation of systematic reviews is particularly challenging in cases where few robust clinical trials have been performed to address a particular question. However, risk of bias can be minimized and potentially useful conclusions can be drawn if strict review methodology is adhered to, including an exhaustive literature search, quality appraisal of primary studies, appropriate statistical methodology, assessment of confidence in estimates and risk of bias. Therefore, the following article aims to: (I) summarize to the important features of a thorough and rigorous systematic review or meta-analysis for the surgical literature; (II) highlight several underused statistical approaches which may yield further interesting insights compared to conventional pairwise data synthesis techniques; and (III) propose a guide for thorough analysis and presentation of results.
引用
收藏
页码:112 / 122
页数:11
相关论文
共 72 条
[31]   Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees [J].
Lewis, S ;
Clarke, M .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 322 (7300) :1479-1480
[32]   Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? [J].
McAuley, L ;
Pham, B ;
Tugwell, P ;
Moher, D .
LANCET, 2000, 356 (9237) :1228-1231
[33]   ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS - AN ANNOTATED-BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SCALES AND CHECKLISTS [J].
MOHER, D ;
JADAD, AR ;
NICHOL, G ;
PENMAN, M ;
TUGWELL, P ;
WALSH, S .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1995, 16 (01) :62-73
[34]   Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement [J].
Moher, David ;
Liberati, Alessandro ;
Tetzlaff, Jennifer ;
Altman, Douglas G. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2009, 62 (10) :1006-1012
[35]   Determination of the clinical importance of study results - A review [J].
Mon-Son-Hing, M ;
Laupacis, A ;
O'Rourke, K ;
Molnar, FJ ;
Mahon, J ;
Chan, KBY ;
Wells, G .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2002, 17 (06) :469-476
[36]   Synthesizing Evidence Shifting the Focus From Individual Studies to the Body of Evidence [J].
Murad, M. Hassan ;
Montori, Victor M. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2013, 309 (21) :2217-2218
[37]   A CONSUMERS GUIDE TO SUBGROUP ANALYSES [J].
OXMAN, AD ;
GUYATT, GH .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1992, 116 (01) :78-84
[38]   USERS GUIDES TO THE MEDICAL LITERATURE .6. HOW TO USE AN OVERVIEW [J].
OXMAN, AD ;
COOK, DJ ;
GUYATT, GH .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1994, 272 (17) :1367-1371
[39]  
Parmar MKB, 1998, STAT MED, V17, P2815, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::AID-SIM110>3.0.CO
[40]  
2-8