Literature DB >> 18496080

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: studies of studies.

Sandra Engberg1.   

Abstract

Systematic reviews are designed to answer a focused clinical question. They employ a predetermined explicit methodology to comprehensively search for, select, appraise, and analyze studies. Meta-analysis is the statistical pooling of the results of studies that are part of a systematic review. Systematic reviews are research studies and, like other studies, they need to be based on a structured and valid methodology and take measures to minimize bias. High-quality systematic reviews can be powerful tools to support clinical decision-making, as well as summarize current knowledge in relation to an area of research interest. This article describes the methodology that should be used when doing a systematic review, presents guidelines for reporting the review, and provides a guideline for critically appraising published reviews.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18496080     DOI: 10.1097/01.WON.0000319122.76112.23

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs        ISSN: 1071-5754            Impact factor:   1.741


  6 in total

1.  Systematically reviewing the literature: building the evidence for health care quality.

Authors:  Suzanne Austin Boren; David Moxley
Journal:  Mo Med       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb

2.  Meta-analyses and orthodontic evidence-based clinical practice in the 21 century.

Authors:  Moschos A Papadopoulos
Journal:  Open Dent J       Date:  2010-07-16

3.  Citation Discovery Tools for Conducting Adaptive Meta-analyses to Update Systematic Reviews.

Authors:  Jong-Myon Bae; Eun Hee Kim
Journal:  J Prev Med Public Health       Date:  2016-03-14

4.  Compression for Primary Prevention, Treatment, and Prevention of Recurrence of Venous Leg Ulcers: An Evidence-and Consensus-Based Algorithm for Care Across the Continuum.

Authors:  Catherine R Ratliff; Stephanie Yates; Laurie McNichol; Mikel Gray
Journal:  J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.741

5.  MCPerm: a Monte Carlo permutation method for accurately correcting the multiple testing in a meta-analysis of genetic association studies.

Authors:  Yongshuai Jiang; Lanying Zhang; Fanwu Kong; Mingming Zhang; Hongchao Lv; Guiyou Liu; Mingzhi Liao; Rennan Feng; Jin Li; Ruijie Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  An overview of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests accuracy.

Authors:  Jong-Myon Bae
Journal:  Epidemiol Health       Date:  2014-08-29
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.