Literature DB >> 33656592

[Types of evidence syntheses].

S Graf1,2, J Kranz3,4,5, S Schmidt3, L Bellut3,6, A Uhlig3,7.   

Abstract

This manuscript outlines various types of review articles as forms of evidence synthesis with special regard to their strengths and limitations. Review articles not only present summarised data, but also offer an evaluation of the quality of the individual studies included in it. The validity and the reliability of outcomes of reviews is strongly dependent on the quality of the data included. For this reason, a comprehensive literature selection process is paramount. Fundamental knowledge of bias and literature assessment is also necessary when reading reviews. This article presents selected tools for evidence appraisal and evaluation of bias risk.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Confounding variables; Evidence-based medicine; Meta-analyses; Systematic reviews as topic

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33656592      PMCID: PMC7927776          DOI: 10.1007/s00120-021-01476-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urologe A        ISSN: 0340-2592            Impact factor:   0.639


  24 in total

1.  A brief history of research synthesis.

Authors:  Iain Chalmers; Larry V Hedges; Harris Cooper
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.651

Review 2.  A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

Authors:  Maria J Grant; Andrew Booth
Journal:  Health Info Libr J       Date:  2009-06

3.  The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.

Authors:  S H Downs; N Black
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.

Authors:  Jonathan A C Sterne; Jelena Savović; Matthew J Page; Roy G Elbers; Natalie S Blencowe; Isabelle Boutron; Christopher J Cates; Hung-Yuan Cheng; Mark S Corbett; Sandra M Eldridge; Jonathan R Emberson; Miguel A Hernán; Sally Hopewell; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Daniela R Junqueira; Peter Jüni; Jamie J Kirkham; Toby Lasserson; Tianjing Li; Alexandra McAleenan; Barnaby C Reeves; Sasha Shepperd; Ian Shrier; Lesley A Stewart; Kate Tilling; Ian R White; Penny F Whiting; Julian P T Higgins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2019-08-28

Review 5.  Identifying and avoiding bias in research.

Authors:  Christopher J Pannucci; Edwin G Wilkins
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  Empirical Comparison of Publication Bias Tests in Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Lifeng Lin; Haitao Chu; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Chuan Hong; Zhiyong Qu; Stephen R Cole; Yong Chen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias.

Authors:  C B Begg; M Mazumdar
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 8.  A scoping review of rapid review methods.

Authors:  Andrea C Tricco; Jesmin Antony; Wasifa Zarin; Lisa Strifler; Marco Ghassemi; John Ivory; Laure Perrier; Brian Hutton; David Moher; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  Bladder cancer--the neglected tumor: a descriptive analysis of publications referenced in MEDLINE and data from the register ClinicalTrials.gov.

Authors:  Frank Kunath; Steffen F Krause; Bernd Wullich; Peter J Goebell; Dirk G Engehausen; Maximilian Burger; Joerg J Meerpohl; Bastian Keck
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 10.  How to Conduct a Systematic Review: A Narrative Literature Review.

Authors:  Nusrat Jahan; Sadiq Naveed; Muhammad Zeshan; Muhammad A Tahir
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2016-11-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.