← vista completa

Published on May 23, 2014 | http://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2014.04.5955

Systematic reviews of biomedical literature: an introduction for busy clinicians

Revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura: una introducción para el clínico ocupado

Felipe Martínez Lomakin , Eva Madrid Aris

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Esta licencia permite el uso, distribución y reproducción del artículo en cualquier medio, siempre y cuando se otorgue el crédito correspondiente al autor del artículo y al medio en que se publica, en este caso, Medwave.

Authors

Felipe Martínez Lomakin

ranoih@gmail.com

Hontaneda 2664 Edificio Dr

Eva Madrid Aris

Departamento de Salud Pública, Escuela de Medicina, Universidad de Valparaíso, Chile

Figures

Article has no figures.

Forum

No messages

History

Citation Martínez Lomakin F, Madrid Aris E. Systematic reviews of biomedical literature: an introduction for busy clinicians. Medwave 2014;14(04):e5955 doi: 10.5867/medwave.2014.04.5955

Submission date 07/04/2014

Acceptance date 16/05/2014

Publication date 23/05/2014

Index

Article metrics

Article has no metrics.

Notes

Origin and peer review

con revisión por cinco pares revisores externos, a doble ciego

References

  1. Manchikanti L, Benyamin RM, Helm S, Hirsch JA. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 3: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials. Pain Physician. 2009;12(1):35-72. | PubMed | Link
  2. van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2002;21(4):589-624. | CrossRef | PubMed
  3. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. [on line] | Link
  4. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman D. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. Oxforf, UK: BMJ books, 2008. | Link
  5. Letelier LM, Manríquez JJ, Rada G. Systematic reviews and metaanalysis: are the best evidence? Rev Med Chil. 2005;133(2):246–9. | CrossRef | PubMed
  6. Crowther M, Lim W, Crowther MA. Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Blood. 2010;116(17):3140-6. | CrossRef | PubMed
  7. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. | CrossRef | PubMed
  8. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. | CrossRef | PubMed
  9. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 2000;356(9237):1228-31. | CrossRef | PubMed
  10. Schulz KF1, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(11):726-32. | CrossRef | PubMed
  11. Coffey CS1, Levin B, Clark C, Timmerman C, Wittes J, Gilbert P, et al. Overview, hurdles, and future work in adaptive designs: perspectives from a National Institutes of Health-funded workshop. Clin Trials. 2012;9(6):671-80. | CrossRef | PubMed
  12. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116(1):78-84. | CrossRef | PubMed
  13. Berlin JA, Antman EM. Advantages and limitations of metaanalytic regressions of clinical trials data. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1994;Doc No. 134. | PubMed
  14. Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Treating individuals 4: can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Lancet. 2005;365(9456):341-6. | CrossRef | PubMed
  15. Khoshdel A, Attia J, Carney SL. Basic concepts in meta-analysis: A primer for clinicians. Int J Clin Pract. 2006;60(10):1287-94. | CrossRef | PubMed
  16. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539-58. | CrossRef | PubMed
  17. Petitti DB. Approaches to heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2001 Dec 15;20(23):3625-33. | CrossRef | PubMed
  18. Huedo-Medina TB, Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods. 2006;11(2):193-206. | CrossRef | PubMed
  19. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(1):MR000006. | CrossRef | PubMed
  20. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008;3(8):e3081. | CrossRef | PubMed
  21. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-34. | CrossRef | PubMed
  22. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006;295(6):676-80. | CrossRef | PubMed