Literature DB >> 21847059

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of published studies: an overview and best practices.

Jayawant N Mandrekar1, Sumithra J Mandrekar.   

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analytic approaches are widely used in the clinical arena to integrate outcome data from published studies in a patient population that address a set of related research hypotheses. The credibility of this line of research is dependent on how the studies are chosen, how the data are assembled, and how the results are reported. In this brief report, we provide an overview of the minimum set of reporting requirements for systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. As with any research, following a set of established guidelines is essential for quality and consistency of the findings across studies and for assessment of clinical utility.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2011        PMID： 21847059      PMCID： PMC3158384          DOI： 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31822461b0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Oncol        ISSN： 1556-0864            Impact factor:   15.609


  9 in total

Review 1.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

Authors:  D Moher; D J Cook; S Eastwood; I Olkin; D Rennie; D F Stroup
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-11-27       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  CONSORT revised--improving the reporting of randomized trials.

Authors:  D Rennie
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-04-18       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints.

Authors:  M K Parmar; V Torri; L Stewart
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 4.  Meta-analysis: an update.

Authors:  H S Sacks; D Reitman; D Pagano; B Kupelnick
Journal:  Mt Sinai J Med       Date:  1996 May-Sep

5.  Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  H S Sacks; J Berrier; D Reitman; V A Ancona-Berk; T C Chalmers
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1987-02-19       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Melphalan and prednisone versus melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide for elderly and/or transplant ineligible patients with multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  P Kapoor; S V Rajkumar; A Dispenzieri; M A Gertz; M Q Lacy; D Dingli; J R Mikhael; V Roy; R A Kyle; P R Greipp; S Kumar; S J Mandrekar
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 11.528

7.  Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the baseline findings of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Muralikrishna Gopal; Shaad E Abdullah; James J Grady; James S Goodwin
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 15.609

8.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-07-21

9.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069
  9 in total
  2 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

Review 2.  Clinical determinants of the severity of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ryota Matsuyama; Hiroshi Nishiura; Satoshi Kutsuna; Kayoko Hayakawa; Norio Ohmagari
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 3.295
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.