EBHC Library > EBP > Systematic Reviews > Articles

 Page last update: 08/01/2008

	General
	Preparing
	Reporting
	Bias
	Searching
	Appraising
	Using
	Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies
	Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Tests
	Economic Issues
	Miscellanea

 

General

• Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007;4:e78
  • PLoS Medicine Editors. Many reviews are systematic but some are more transparent and completely reported than others. PLoS Med 2007;4:e147

• Tugwell P, Robinson V, Grimshaw J, et al. Systematic reviews and knowledge translation. Bull World Health Organ 2006;84:643-651.

• Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, et al. Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts. BMC Med 2003;1:2

• Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JP. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. BMJ 2003;327:1083-4

• Petticrew M. Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions. BMJ 2003;326:756-758

• Moher D, Schachter HM. Potential solutions to the problem of conducting systematic reviews of new health technologies. CMAJ 2002;166:1674-5.

• Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ 2001;322:98-101

• Ernst E, Pittler MH. Assessment of therapeutic safety in systematic reviews: literature review. BMJ 2001;323:546.

• Ernst E, Pittler MH. Systematic reviews neglect safety issues. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:125-6.

• Gotzsche PC.  Why we need a broad perspective on meta-analysis. It may be crucially important for patients. BMJ 2000;321:585-6.

• Alderson P, Roberts I. Should journals publish systematic reviews that find no evidence to guide practice? Examples from injury research. BMJ 2000;320:376-7.

• McAlister FA, Clark HD, van Walraven C, et al. The medical review article revisited: has the science improved? Ann Intern Med 1999;131:947-51

• Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet 1998;351:123-7.

• Pogue J, Yusuf S. Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 1998;351:47-52.

• Cartabellotta A, et al. Le revisioni sistematiche: uno strumento per la pratica clinica, la formazione permanente e le decisioni di politica sanitaria. Recenti Pro Med 1998;89:329-37.

• [No authors listed]. Meta-analysis under scrutiny. Lancet 1997;350:675.

• Naylor CD. Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research. BMJ 1997;315:617-9.

• Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ 1997;156:1411-6

• Sharp SJ, Thompson SG, Altman DG. The relation between treatment benefit and underlying risk in meta-analysis. BMJ 1996;313:735-8.

• Sim I, Hlatky MA. Growing pains of meta-analysis. BMJ 1996;313:702-3.

• Moher D, Olkin I. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A concern for standards. JAMA 1995;274:1962-4.

• Kassirer JP. Clinical trials and meta-analysis. What do they do for us? N Engl J Med 1992;327:273-4.

• Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987;106:485-8. [abstract]

Preparing

• Protocol

  • Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA 2002;287:2831-4.

• Searching Evidence

  • Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 2005;331:1064-5.

  • McManus RJ, Wilson S, Delaney BC, et al. Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews. BMJ 1998;317:1562-3.

  • Spoor P, Airey M, Bennett C, et al. Use of the capture-recapture technique to evaluate the completeness of systematic literature searches. BMJ 1996;313:342-3.

• Quality assessment of primary studies

  • RCTs

    • Moja LP, Telaro E, D'Amico R, et al. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ 2005;330:1053.

    • Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:982-9.

    • Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42-6

    • Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609-13.

      • Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified? Lancet 1998;352:590-1

  • Diagnostic studies

    •  

  • Prognostic studies

    • Hayden JA, Cote P, Bombardier C. Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:427-37.

    • Altman DG. Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ 2001;323:224-228

• Inclusion/Exclusion issues

  • McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, et al. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 2000;356:1228-31.

  • Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Ryan G, et al Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA 1993;269:2749-53.

• Assessing heterogeneity

  • Hatala R, Keitz S, Wyer P et al. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 4. Assessing heterogeneity of primary studies in systematic reviews and whether to combine their results. CMAJ 2005;172:661-5

• Updating

  • Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, et al How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:224-33
    • Laupacis A, Straus S. Systematic reviews: time to address clinical and policy relevance as well as methodological rigor. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:273-274

  • Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews: when is an update an update? Lancet 2006;367:881-3.

  • French SD, McDonald S, McKenzie JE, et al. Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated? BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:33

• Miscellanea

  • Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, et al. Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews. BMJ 2004;328:1010-2.

  • Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60.

Reporting

• QUOROM Statement

  • Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896-900.

  • Walker A. Meta-style and expert review. Lancet 1999;354:1834-5.

  • Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, et al. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ 2006;332:202-9.

• MOOSE Statement

  • Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008-12.

Bias

• Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 13;315:629-34.

Searching

• Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, et al. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2004

• Glanville J, Lefebvre C. Identifying systematic reviews: key resources. Evidence-Based Medicine [EBM Notebook] 2000;5:68-9

• Hunt DL, McKibbon KA. Locating and appraising systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:532-538

Appraising

• Users' Guides

  • Greenhalg T. Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta- analyses). BMJ 1997;315: 672-675

  • Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1994;272:1367-71.

• Others

  • Hopayian K. The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews. BMJ 2001;323:681-4

  • Smeeth L, Haines A, Ebrahim S. Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses--sometimes informative, usually misleading. BMJ 1999;318:1548-51.

• Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Lancet 2005;365:341-6.

• Temple R. Meta-analysis and epidemiologic studies in drug development and postmarketing surveillance. JAMA 1999;281:841-4.

• Berlin JA, Colditz GA. The role of meta-analysis in the regulatory process for foods, drugs, and devices. JAMA 1999;281:830-4.

• Jordens CF, Hawe P, Irwig LM, et al. Use of systematic reviews of randomised trials by Australian neonatologists and obstetricians. Med J Aust 1998;168:267-70.

SR vs RCTs

• LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, et al. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1997;337:536-42.
  • Bailar JC 3rd. The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med 1997;337:559-61.
• Ioannidis JP, Cappelleri JC, Lau J. Issues in comparisons between meta-analyses and large trials. JAMA 1998;279:1089-93.
• Cappelleri JC, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH, et al. Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare? JAMA 1996;276:1332-8.

• Villar J, Carroli G, Belizan JM. Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 1995;345:772-6 [abstract]

  • Flournoy N, Olkin I. Do small trials square with large ones? Lancet 1995;345:741-2.

Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies

• Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes RJ. When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials? Ann Intern Med 2006;144:850-5.
• Bossuyt PM, Lijmer JG, Mol BW. Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient. Lancet 2000;356:1844-7.

Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Tests

• Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Halligan S, et al. Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting. BMJ 2006;333:413.
• Tatsioni A, Zarin DA, Aronson N, et al. Challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic technologies. Ann Intern Med 2005;142(12 Pt 2):1048-55
• Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:1-128.
• Pai M, McCulloch M, Enanoria W, et al. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test evaluations: What's behind the scenes? Evid Based Med 2004 9:101-103
• Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 2001;323:157-162
• Vamvakas EC. Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests: a review of the concepts and methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;122:675-86. [abstract]
• Cochrane Methods Group on Systematic Review of Screening and Diagnostic Tests: Recommended Methods, updated 6 June 1996
• Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M. Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:119-30 [abstract]
• Irwig L, Tosteson ANA, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 1994;120: 667-76.

• Vamvakas EC. Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests: a review of the concepts and methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;122:675-86. [abstract]

• Cochrane Methods Group on Systematic Review of Screening and Diagnostic Tests: Recommended Methods, updated 6 June 1996

• Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M. Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:119-30 [abstract]

• Irwig L, Tosteson ANA, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC, Mosteller F. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 1994;120: 667-76 [abstract]

Economic Issues

• Glasziou P, Djulbegovic B, Burls A. Are systematic reviews more cost-effective than randomised trials? Lancet 2006;367:2057-8.

Miscellanea

• Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, et al. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;326:472.

• Jefferson T, Demicheli V, Vale L. Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care. JAMA 2002;287:2809-12.

• Nixon J, Khan KS, Kleijnen J. Summarising economic evaluations in systematic reviews: a new approach. BMJ 2001;322:1596-8.

• Dixon-Woods M, Fitzpatrick R. Qualitative research in systematic reviews. Has established a place for itself. BMJ 2001;323:765-6.

• Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JP. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. BMJ 2003;327:1083-4.

• von Elm E, Poglia G, Walder B, et al. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA 2004;291:974-80.

• Weingarten MA, Paul M, Leibovici L. Assessing ethics of trials in systematic reviews. BMJ 2004;328:1013-4.

• Herbert RD, Bo K. Analysis of quality of interventions in systematic reviews. BMJ 2005;331:507-9.

• Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, et al. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1-76

  • Mindstretcher - Checking out systematic reviews. Bandolier, april 2003

• Moher D, Schachter HM. Potential solutions to the problem of conducting systematic reviews of new health technologies. CMAJ 2002;166:1674-5

• Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2002;287:2973-82.

• Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:982-9. 

• Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ 2000;320:1574-7

• Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054-60

• Berlin JA, Rennie D. Measuring the quality of trials: the quality of quality scales. JAMA 1999;282:1083-5

• Smeeth L, Haines A, Ebrahim S. Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses--sometimes informative, usually misleading. BMJ 1999;318:1548-51

Web partners
Centro Studi EBN