Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
- 1 May 2008
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Journal of Wound, Ostomy & Continence Nursing
- Vol. 35 (3) , 258-265
- https://doi.org/10.1097/01.won.0000319122.76112.23
Abstract
Systematic reviews are designed to answer a focused clinical question. They employ a predetermined explicit methodology to comprehensively search for, select, appraise, and analyze studies. Meta-analysis is the statistical pooling of the results of studies that are part of a systematic review. Systematic reviews are research studies and, like other studies, they need to be based on a structured and valid methodology and take measures to minimize bias. High-quality systematic reviews can be powerful tools to support clinical decision-making, as well as summarize current knowledge in relation to an area of research interest. This article describes the methodology that should be used when doing a systematic review, presents guidelines for reporting the review, and provides a guideline for critically appraising published reviews.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Bibliographic study showed improving methodology of meta-analyses published in leading journals 1993–2002Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2007
- THE PROMISE AND PITFALLS OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWSAnnual Review of Public Health, 2006
- Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysisArchives of Disease in Childhood, 2005
- Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 4. Assessing heterogeneity of primary studies in systematic reviews and whether to combine their resultsCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2005
- The use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in infection control and hospital epidemiologyAmerican Journal of Infection Control, 2004
- Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the treesBMJ, 2001
- Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statementBritish Journal of Surgery, 2000
- Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?Controlled Clinical Trials, 1996
- Quotation bias in reviews of the diet-heart ideaJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- Publication bias in clinical researchThe Lancet, 1991