Literature DB >> 18330530

[Systematic reviews and meta-analysis].

Gerald Gartlehner1, Claudia Wild, Philipp Mad.   

Abstract

Over the past years, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have led to significant changes in clinical medicine and health policy. To date, they can be viewed as the most objective instruments to answer clinical as well health policy questions. In addition, systematic reviews are an important tool to synthesize the enormous amount of new medical knowledge into a manageable format. Nevertheless, the methodological quality of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses varies and biased results can be misleading. Therefore, it is important for readers of systematic reviews to critically evaluate the underlying methods, to be able to assess the validity of their findings. This manuscript is part of a methods series of the Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift. It summarizes the methodological hallmarks of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide readers with the methodological background necessary to critically evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18330530     DOI: 10.1007/s10354-007-0499-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr        ISSN: 0043-5341


  30 in total

1.  Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated?

Authors:  P G Shekelle; E Ortiz; S Rhodes; S C Morton; M P Eccles; J M Grimshaw; S H Woolf
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-09-26       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Investigating causes of heterogeneity in systematic reviews.

Authors:  P P Glasziou; S L Sanders
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  How meta-analysis increases statistical power.

Authors:  Lawrence D Cohn; Betsy J Becker
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2003-09

Review 4.  Challenges in systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine topics.

Authors:  Paul G Shekelle; Sally C Morton; Marika J Suttorp; Nina Buscemi; Carol Friesen
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2005-06-21       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 5.  Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies.

Authors:  M Egger; M Schneider; G Davey Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-01-10

6.  The medical review article: state of the science.

Authors:  C D Mulrow
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1987-03       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Rationale for systematic reviews.

Authors:  C D Mulrow
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-09-03

8.  Sources of heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of observational studies: the example of SIDS and sleeping position.

Authors:  T Dwyer; D Couper; S D Walter
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 9.  Outcomes of routine episiotomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Katherine Hartmann; Meera Viswanathan; Rachel Palmieri; Gerald Gartlehner; John Thorp; Kathleen N Lohr
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-05-04       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Changes over time in the knowledge base of practicing internists.

Authors:  P G Ramsey; J D Carline; T S Inui; E B Larson; J P LoGerfo; J J Norcini; M D Wenrich
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-08-28       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  [Endovascular deployment of stent graft in the ascending aorta. A systematic review].

Authors:  S Geiger-Gritsch; B Piso; B Guba; R Felder-Puig
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  [Diagnostic studies].

Authors:  Rosemarie Felder-Puig; Philipp Mad; Gerald Gartlehner
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2009
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.