Literature DB >> 33871856

Evidence-Based Decision-Making 2: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.

Aminu Bello1, Ben Vandermeer2, Natasha Wiebe3, Amit X Garg4, Marcello Tonelli5.   

Abstract

The number of studies published in the biomedical literature has dramatically increased over the last few decades. This massive proliferation of literature makes clinical medicine increasingly complex, and information from multiple studies is often needed to inform a particular clinical decision. However, available studies often vary in their design, methodological quality, and population studied, and may define the research question of interest quite differently. This can make it challenging to synthesize the conclusions of multiple studies. In addition, since even highly cited trials may be challenged over time, clinical decision-making requires ongoing reconciliation of studies which provide different answers to the same question. Because it is often impractical for readers to track down and review all the primary studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are an important source of evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of any given disease. This chapter summarizes methods for conducting and reading systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as describes potential advantages and disadvantages of these publications.

Keywords:  Forest plot; Literature synthesis; Meta-analysis; Random effects; Systematic review

Year:  2021        PMID: 33871856     DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-1138-8_22

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods Mol Biol        ISSN: 1064-3745


  65 in total

Review 1.  Acute renal failure and sepsis.

Authors:  Robert W Schrier; Wei Wang
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-07-08       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Immunosuppressive drugs for kidney transplantation.

Authors:  Philip F Halloran
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-12-23       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  Clinical practice. Preventing nephropathy induced by contrast medium.

Authors:  Brendan J Barrett; Patrick S Parfrey
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-01-26       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  A Primer on Performing Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.

Authors:  Craig A Umscheid
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 9.079

Review 5.  The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines.

Authors:  D J Cook; N L Greengold; A G Ellrodt; S R Weingarten
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-08-01       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice.

Authors:  Mark C Simmonds; Julian P T Higgins; Lesley A Stewart; Jayne F Tierney; Mike J Clarke; Simon G Thompson
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 7.  Socioeconomic development as an intervention against malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lucy S Tusting; Barbara Willey; Henry Lucas; John Thompson; Hmooda T Kafy; Richard Smith; Steve W Lindsay
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Lost in publication: Half of all renal practice evidence is published in non-renal journals.

Authors:  A X Garg; A V Iansavichus; M Kastner; L A Walters; N Wilczynski; K A McKibbon; R C Yang; F Rehman; R B Haynes
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2006-10-11       Impact factor: 10.612

Review 9.  Comparison of global estimates of prevalence and risk factors for peripheral artery disease in 2000 and 2010: a systematic review and analysis.

Authors:  F Gerald R Fowkes; Diana Rudan; Igor Rudan; Victor Aboyans; Julie O Denenberg; Mary M McDermott; Paul E Norman; Uchechukwe K A Sampson; Linda J Williams; George A Mensah; Michael H Criqui
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  The strengths and limitations of meta-analyses based on aggregate data.

Authors:  Gary H Lyman; Nicole M Kuderer
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2005-04-25       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.