The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration


Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.

Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.

The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.


Vyšlo v časopise: The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
Kategorie: Guidelines and Guidance
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

Souhrn

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.

Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.

The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.


Zdroje

1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research 2006 Randomized controlled trials registration/application checklist (12/2006). Available: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2009

2. YoungC

HortonR

2005 Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 366 107 108

3. MoherD

TetzlaffJ

TriccoAC

SampsonM

AltmanDG

2007 Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4 e78 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078

4. DixonE

HameedM

SutherlandF

CookDJ

DoigC

2005 Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: A critical appraisal. Ann Surg 241 450 459

5. HemelsME

VicenteC

SadriH

MassonMJ

EinarsonTR

2004 Quality assessment of meta-analyses of RCTs of pharmacotherapy in major depressive disorder. Curr Med Res Opin 20 477 484

6. JinW

YuR

LiW

YoupingL

YaL

2008 The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: A random sampling study. J Clin Epidemiol 61 770 775

7. MoherD

SimeraI

SchulzKF

HoeyJ

AltmanDG

2008 Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research. BMC Med 6 13

8. MoherD

CookDJ

EastwoodS

OlkinI

RennieD

1999 Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354 1896 1900

9. GreenS

HigginsJPT

AldersonP

ClarkeM

MulrowCD

2008 Chapter 1: What is a systematic review? In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/. Accessed 26 May 2009

10. GuyattGH

OxmanAD

VistGE

KunzR

Falck-YtterY

2008 GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336 924 926

11. HigginsJPT

AltmanDG

2008 Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies.

HigginsJPT

GreenS

Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration Available: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/. Accessed 26 May 2009

12. MoherD

LiberatiA

TetzlaffJ

AltmanDG

The PRISMA Group 2008 Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6 e1000097 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

13. AtkinsD

FinkK

SlutskyJ

2005 Better information for better health care: The Evidence-based Practice Center program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ann Intern Med 142 1035 1041

14. HelfandM

BalshemH

2009 Principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol In press

15. HigginsJPT

GreenS

2008 Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/. Accessed 26 May 2009

16. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2009 Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care York University of York Available: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/systematic_reviews_book.htm. Accessed 26 May 2009

17. AltmanDG

SchulzKF

MoherD

EggerM

DavidoffF

2001 The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134 663 694

18. BossuytPM

ReitsmaJB

BrunsDE

GatsonisCA

GlasziouPP

2003 The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: Explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem 49 7 18

19. VandenbrouckeJP

von ElmE

AltmanDG

GøtzschePC

MulrowCD

2007 Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 4 e297 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297

20. BarkerA

MaratosEC

EdmondsL

LimE

2007 Recurrence rates of video-assisted thoracoscopic versus open surgery in the prevention of recurrent pneumothoraces: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised trials. Lancet 370 329 335

21. BjelakovicG

NikolovaD

GluudLL

SimonettiRG

GluudC

2007 Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention: Systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 297 842 857

22. MontoriVM

WilczynskiNL

MorganD

HaynesRB

2005 Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: Analytical survey. BMJ 330 68

23. Bischoff-FerrariHA

WillettWC

WongJB

GiovannucciE

DietrichT

2005 Fracture prevention with vitamin D supplementation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 293 2257 2264

24. HopewellS

ClarkeM

MoherD

WagerE

MiddletonP

2008 CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet 371 281 283

25. HopewellS

ClarkeM

MoherD

WagerE

MiddletonP

2008 CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 5 e20 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020

26. HaynesRB

MulrowCD

HuthEJ

AltmanDG

GardnerMJ

1990 More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med 113 69 76

27. MulrowCD

ThackerSB

PughJA

1988 A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles. Ann Intern Med 108 613 615

28. FroomP

FroomJ

1993 Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts. J Clin Epidemiol 46 591 594

29. HartleyJ

2000 Clarifying the abstracts of systematic literature reviews. Bull Med Libr Assoc 88 332 337

30. HartleyJ

SydesM

BlurtonA

1996 Obtaining information accurately and quickly: Are structured abstract more efficient? J Infor Sci 22 349 356

31. PocockSJ

HughesMD

LeeRJ

1987 Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. N Engl J Med 317 426 432

32. TaddioA

PainT

FassosFF

BoonH

IlersichAL

1994 Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association. CMAJ 150 1611 1615

33. HarrisKC

KuramotoLK

SchulzerM

RetallackJE

2009 Effect of school-based physical activity interventions on body mass index in children: A meta-analysis. CMAJ 180 719 726

34. JamesMT

ConleyJ

TonelliM

MannsBJ

MacRaeJ

2008 Meta-analysis: Antibiotics for prophylaxis against hemodialysis catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 148 596 605

35. CounsellC

1997 Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 127 380 387

36. GotzschePC

2000 Why we need a broad perspective on meta-analysis. It may be crucially important for patients. BMJ 321 585 586

37. GrossmanP

NiemannL

SchmidtS

WalachH

2004 Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits. A meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res 57 35 43

38. BruntonG

GreenS

HigginsJPT

KjeldstrømM

JacksonN

2008 Chapter 2: Preparing a Cochrane review.

HigginsJPT

GreenS

Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration Available: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/. Accessed 26 May 2009

39. SuttonAJ

AbramsKR

JonesDR

SheldonTA

SongF

1998 Systematic reviews of trials and other studies. Health Technol Assess 2 1 276

40. IoannidisJP

RosenbergPS

GoedertJJ

O'BrienTR

2002 Commentary: Meta-analysis of individual participants' data in genetic epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 156 204 210

41. StewartLA

ClarkeMJ

1995 Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. Stat Med 14 2057 2079

42. ChanAW

HrobjartssonA

HaahrMT

GøtzschePC

AltmanDG

2004 Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291 2457 2465

43. DwanK

AltmanDG

ArnaizJA

BloomJ

ChanAW

2008 Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 3 e3081 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003081

44. SilagyCA

MiddletonP

HopewellS

2002 Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: Comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA 287 2831 2834

45. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2009 Research projects York University of York Available: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb. Accessed 26 May 2009

46. The Joanna Briggs Institute 2009 Protocols & work in progress. Available: http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/pubs/systematic_reviews_prot.php. Accessed 26 May 2009

47. BagshawSM

McAlisterFA

MannsBJ

GhaliWA

2006 Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: A case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence. Arch Intern Med 166 161 166

48. Biondi-ZoccaiGG

LotrionteM

AbbateA

TestaL

RemigiE

2006 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 332 202 209

49. SacksHS

BerrierJ

ReitmanD

Ancona-BerkVA

ChalmersTC

1987 Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 316 450 455

50. SchrothRJ

HitchonCA

UhanovaJ

NoreddinA

TabackSP

2004 Hepatitis B vaccination for patients with chronic renal failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 3: CD003775. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003775.pub2

51. EggerM

Zellweger-ZahnerT

SchneiderM

JunkerC

LengelerC

1997 Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 350 326 329

52. GregoireG

DerderianF

Le LorierJ

1995 Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a Tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol 48 159 163

53. JüniP

HolensteinF

SterneJ

BartlettC

EggerM

2002 Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: Empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 31 115 123

54. MoherD

PhamB

KlassenTP

SchulzKF

BerlinJA

2000 What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol 53 964 972

55. PanZ

TrikalinosTA

KavvouraFK

LauJ

IoannidisJP

2005 Local literature bias in genetic epidemiology: An empirical evaluation of the Chinese literature. PLoS Med 2 e334 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020334

56. HopewellS

McDonaldS

ClarkeM

EggerM

2007 Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 2: MR000010. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000010.pub3

57. MelanderH

Ahlqvist-RastadJ

MeijerG

BeermannB

2003 Evidence b(i)ased medicine—Selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: Review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 326 1171 1173

58. SuttonAJ

DuvalSJ

TweedieRL

AbramsKR

JonesDR

2000 Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ 320 1574 1577

59. GotzschePC

2006 Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: Cross sectional study. BMJ 333 231 234

60. BhandariM

DevereauxPJ

GuyattGH

CookDJ

SwiontkowskiMF

2002 An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A 615 621

61. RosmarakisES

SoteriadesES

VergidisPI

KasiakouSK

FalagasME

2005 From conference abstract to full paper: Differences between data presented in conferences and journals. Faseb J 19 673 680

62. TomaM

McAlisterFA

BialyL

AdamsD

VandermeerB

2006 Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials. JAMA 295 1281 1287

63. SaundersY

RossJR

BroadleyKE

EdmondsPM

PatelS

2004 Systematic review of bisphosphonates for hypercalcaemia of malignancy. Palliat Med 18 418 431

64. ShojaniaKG

SampsonM

AnsariMT

JiJ

DoucetteS

2007 How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med 147 224 233

65. BergerhoffK

EbrahimS

PalettaG

2004 Do we need to consider ‘in process citations’ for search strategies? 12th Cochrane Colloquium; 2–6 October 2004; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Available: http://www.cochrane.org/colloquia/abstracts/ottawa/P-039.htm. Accessed 26 May 2009

66. ZhangL

SampsonM

McGowanJ

2006 Reporting of the role of expert searcher in Cochrane reviews. Evid Based Libr Info Pract 1 3 16

67. TurnerEH

MatthewsAM

LinardatosE

TellRA

RosenthalR

2008 Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 358 252 260

68. AlejandriaMM

LansangMA

DansLF

MantaringJB

2002 Intravenous immunoglobulin for treating sepsis and septic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 1: CD001090. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001090

69. GolderS

McIntoshHM

DuffyS

GlanvilleJ

2006 Developing efficient search strategies to identify reports of adverse effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Health Info Libr J 23 3 12

70. SampsonM

McGowanJ

CogoE

GrimshawJ

MoherD

2009 An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol E-pub 2009 February 18

71. Flores-MirC

MajorMP

MajorPW

2006 Search and selection methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics (2000–2004). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130 214 217

72. MajorMP

MajorPW

Flores-MirC

2006 An evaluation of search and selection methods used in dental systematic reviews published in English. J Am Dent Assoc 137 1252 1257

73. MajorMP

MajorPW

Flores-MirC

2007 Benchmarking of reported search and selection methods of systematic reviews by dental speciality. Evid Based Dent 8 66 70

74. ShahMR

HasselbladV

StevensonLW

BinanayC

O'ConnorCM

2005 Impact of the pulmonary artery catheter in critically ill patients: Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA 294 1664 1670

75. EdwardsP

ClarkeM

DiGuiseppiC

PratapS

RobertsI

2002 Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: Accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med 21 1635 1640

76. CooperHM

RibbleRG

1989 Influences on the outcome of literature searches for integrative research reviews. Knowledge 10 179 201

77. MistiaenP

PootE

2006 Telephone follow-up, initiated by a hospital-based health professional, for postdischarge problems in patients discharged from hospital to home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 4: CD004510. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004510.pub3

78. JonesAP

RemmingtonT

WilliamsonPR

AshbyD

SmythRL

2005 High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58 741 742

79. ClarkeM

HopewellS

JuszczakE

EisingaA

KjeldstromM

2006 Compression stockings for preventing deep vein thrombosis in airline passengers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 2: CD004002. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004002.pub2

80. TramerMR

ReynoldsDJ

MooreRA

McQuayHJ

1997 Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: A case study. BMJ 315 635 640

81. von ElmE

PogliaG

WalderB

TramerMR

2004 Different patterns of duplicate publication: An analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA 291 974 980

82. GotzschePC

1989 Multiple publication of reports of drug trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 36 429 432

83. AllenC

HopewellS

PrenticeA

2005 Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain in women with endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 4: CD004753. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004753.pub2

84. GlasziouP

MeatsE

HeneghanC

ShepperdS

2008 What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 336 1472 1474

85. TraczMJ

SiderasK

BolonaER

HaddadRM

KennedyCC

2006 Testosterone use in men and its effects on bone health. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91 2011 2016

86. BucherHC

HengstlerP

SchindlerC

GuyattGH

2000 Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical treatment for non-acute coronary heart disease: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 321 73 77

87. GluudLL

2006 Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol 163 493 501

88. PildalJ

HróbjartssonA

JorgensenKJ

HildenJ

AltmanDG

2007 Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 36 847 857

89. MojaLP

TelaroE

D'AmicoR

MoschettiI

CoeL

2005 Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: Results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ 330 1053

90. MoherD

JadadAR

TugwellP

1996 Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 12 195 208

91. SandersonS

TattID

HigginsJP

2007 Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: A systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 36 666 676

92. GreenlandS

1994 Invited commentary: A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol 140 290 296

93. JüniP

AltmanDG

EggerM

2001 Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 323 42 46

94. KunzR

OxmanAD

1998 The unpredictability paradox: Review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 317 1185 1190

95. BalkEM

BonisPA

MoskowitzH

SchmidCH

IoannidisJP

2002 Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 287 2973 2982

96. DevereauxPJ

BeattieWS

ChoiPT

BadnerNH

GuyattGH

2005 How strong is the evidence for the use of perioperative beta blockers in non-cardiac surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 331 313 321

97. DevereauxPJ

BhandariM

MontoriVM

MannsBJ

GhaliWA

2002 Double blind, you are the weakest link—Good-bye! ACP J Club 136 A11

98. van NieuwenhovenCA

BuskensE

van TielFH

BontenMJ

2001 Relationship between methodological trial quality and the effects of selective digestive decontamination on pneumonia and mortality in critically ill patients. JAMA 286 335 340

99. GuyattGH

CookD

DevereauxPJ

MeadeM

StrausS

2002 Therapy. Users' guides to the medical literature AMA Press 55 79

100. SackettDL

GentM

1979 Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 301 1410 1412

101. MontoriVM

DevereauxPJ

AdhikariNK

BurnsKE

EggertCH

2005 Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: A systematic review. JAMA 294 2203 2209

102. GuyattGH

DevereauxPJ

2002 Therapy and validity: The principle of intention-to-treat.

GuyattGH

RennieDR

Users' guides to the medical literature AMA Press 267 273

103. BerlinJA

1997 Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Lancet 350 185 186

104. JadadAR

MooreRA

CarrollD

JenkinsonC

ReynoldsDJ

1996 Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17 1 12

105. PittasAG

SiegelRD

LauJ

2004 Insulin therapy for critically ill hospitalized patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 164 2005 2011

106. LakhdarR

Al-MallahMH

LanfearDE

2008 Safety and tolerability of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor versus the combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Card Fail 14 181 188

107. BobatR

CoovadiaH

StephenC

NaidooKL

McKerrowN

2005 Safety and efficacy of zinc supplementation for children with HIV-1 infection in South Africa: A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 366 1862 1867

108. DeeksJJ

AltmanDG

2001 Effect measures for meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes.

EggerM

SmithGD

AltmanDG

Systematic reviews in healthcare: Meta-analysis in context. 2nd edition London BMJ Publishing Group

109. DeeksJJ

2002 Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 21 1575 1600

110. EngelsEA

SchmidCH

TerrinN

OlkinI

LauJ

2000 Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: An empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med 19 1707 1728

111. TierneyJF

StewartLA

GhersiD

BurdettS

SydesMR

2007 Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials 8 16

112. MichielsS

PiedboisP

BurdettS

SyzN

StewartL

2005 Meta-analysis when only the median survival times are known: A comparison with individual patient data results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 21 119 125

113. BrielM

StuderM

GlassTR

BucherHC

2004 Effects of statins on stroke prevention in patients with and without coronary heart disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Med 117 596 606

114. JonesM

SchenkelB

JustJ

FallowfieldL

2004 Epoetin alfa improves quality of life in patients with cancer: Results of metaanalysis. Cancer 101 1720 1732

115. ElbourneDR

AltmanDG

HigginsJP

CurtinF

WorthingtonHV

2002 Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: Methodological issues. Int J Epidemiol 31 140 149

116. FollmannD

ElliottP

SuhI

CutlerJ

1992 Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response. J Clin Epidemiol 45 769 773

117. WiebeN

VandermeerB

PlattRW

KlassenTP

MoherD

2006 A systematic review identifies a lack of standardization in methods for handling missing variance data. J Clin Epidemiol 59 342 353

118. HrobjartssonA

GotzschePC

2004 Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 2: CD003974. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003974.pub2

119. ShekellePG

MortonSC

MaglioneM

SuttorpM

TuW

2004 Pharmacological and surgical treatment of obesity. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) 1 6

120. ChanAW

AltmanDG

2005 Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: Review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 330 753

121. WilliamsonPR

GambleC

2005 Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med 24 1547 1561

122. WilliamsonPR

GambleC

AltmanDG

HuttonJL

2005 Outcome selection bias in meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res 14 515 524

123. IoannidisJP

TrikalinosTA

2007 The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: A large survey. CMAJ 176 1091 1096

124. BrielM

SchwartzGG

ThompsonPL

de LemosJA

BlazingMA

2006 Effects of early treatment with statins on short-term clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndromes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 295 2046 2056

125. SongF

EastwoodAJ

GilbodyS

DuleyL

SuttonAJ

2000 Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess 4 1 115

126. SchmidCH

StarkPC

BerlinJA

LandaisP

LauJ

2004 Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. J Clin Epidemiol 57 683 697

127. HigginsJP

ThompsonSG

2004 Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med 23 1663 1682

128. ThompsonSG

HigginsJP

2005 Treating individuals 4: Can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Lancet 365 341 346

129. UitterhoeveRJ

VernooyM

LitjensM

PottingK

BensingJ

2004 Psychosocial interventions for patients with advanced cancer—A systematic review of the literature. Br J Cancer 91 1050 1062

130. FuccioL

MinardiME

ZagariRM

GrilliD

MagriniN

2007 Meta-analysis: Duration of first-line proton-pump inhibitor based triple therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Ann Intern Med 147 553 562

131. EggerM

SmithGD

1998 Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 316 61 66

132. RavnskovU

1992 Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: Frequency of citation and outcome. BMJ 305 15 19

133. HindD

BoothA

2007 Do health technology assessments comply with QUOROM diagram guidance? An empirical study. BMC Med Res Methodol 7 49

134. CurioniC

AndreC

2006 Rimonabant for overweight or obesity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 4: CD006162. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006162.pub2

135. DeCampLR

ByerleyJS

DoshiN

SteinerMJ

2008 Use of antiemetic agents in acute gastroenteritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 162 858 865

136. PakosEE

IoannidisJP

2004 Radiotherapy vs. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the prevention of heterotopic ossification after major hip procedures: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60 888 895

137. SkalskyK

YahavD

BisharaJ

PitlikS

LeiboviciL

2008 Treatment of human brucellosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 336 701 704

138. AltmanDG

CatesC

2001 The need for individual trial results in reports of systematic reviews. BMJ. Rapid response

139. GotzschePC

HrobjartssonA

MaricK

TendalB

2007 Data extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences. JAMA 298 430 437

140. LewisS

ClarkeM

2001 Forest plots: Trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ 322 1479 1480

141. PapanikolaouPN

IoannidisJP

2004 Availability of large-scale evidence on specific harms from systematic reviews of randomized trials. Am J Med 117 582 589

142. DuffettM

ChoongK

NgV

RandolphA

CookDJ

2007 Surfactant therapy for acute respiratory failure in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 11 R66

143. BalkE

RamanG

ChungM

IpS

TatsioniA

2006 Effectiveness of management strategies for renal artery stenosis: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 145 901 912

144. PalfreymanS

NelsonEA

MichaelsJA

2007 Dressings for venous leg ulcers: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 335 244

145. IoannidisJP

PatsopoulosNA

EvangelouE

2007 Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ 335 914 916

146. AppletonKM

HaywardRC

GunnellD

PetersTJ

RogersPJ

2006 Effects of n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids on depressed mood: Systematic review of published trials. Am J Clin Nutr 84 1308 1316

147. KirschI

DeaconBJ

Huedo-MedinaTB

ScoboriaA

MooreTJ

2008 Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: A meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med 5 e45 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045

148. ReichenbachS

SterchiR

SchererM

TrelleS

BurgiE

2007 Meta-analysis: Chondroitin for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Ann Intern Med 146 580 590

149. HodsonEM

CraigJC

StrippoliGF

WebsterAC

2008 Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 2: CD003774. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003774.pub3

150. ThompsonSG

HigginsJP

2002 How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21 1559 1573

151. ChanAW

Krleza-JericK

SchmidI

AltmanDG

2004 Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 171 735 740

152. HahnS

WilliamsonPR

HuttonJL

GarnerP

FlynnEV

2000 Assessing the potential for bias in meta-analysis due to selective reporting of subgroup analyses within studies. Stat Med 19 3325 3336

153. GreenLW

GlasgowRE

2006 Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: Issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof 29 126 153

154. LiberatiA

D'AmicoR

TorriV

BrazziL

Pifferi 2004 Antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce respiratory tract infections and mortality in adults receiving intensive care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 1: CD000022. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000022.pub2

155. GonzalezR

ZamoraJ

Gomez-CamareroJ

MolineroLM

BanaresR

2008 Meta-analysis: Combination endoscopic and drug therapy to prevent variceal rebleeding in cirrhosis. Ann Intern Med 149 109 122

156. D'AmicoR

PifferiS

LeonettiC

TorriV

TinazziA

1998 Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in critically ill adult patients: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 316 1275 1285

157. OlsenO

MiddletonP

EzzoJ

GotzschePC

HadhazyV

2001 Quality of Cochrane reviews: Assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ 323 829 832

158. HopewellS

WolfendenL

ClarkeM

2008 Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: Survey results. J Clin Epidemiol 61 597 602

159. CookDJ

ReeveBK

GuyattGH

HeylandDK

GriffithLE

1996 Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Resolving discordant meta-analyses. JAMA 275 308 314

160. JadadAR

CookDJ

BrowmanGP

1997 A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ 156 1411 1416

161. ClarkeL

ClarkeM

ClarkeT

2007 How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs? J Health Serv Res Policy 12 101 103

162. [No authors listed] 2000 World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 284 3043 3045

163. ClarkeM

HopewellS

ChalmersI

2007 Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: A status report. J R Soc Med 100 187 190

164. DubeC

RostomA

LewinG

TsertsvadzeA

BarrowmanN

2007 The use of aspirin for primary prevention of colorectal cancer: A systematic review prepared for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 146 365 375

165. CritchleyJ

BatesI

2005 Haemoglobin colour scale for anaemia diagnosis where there is no laboratory: A systematic review. Int J Epidemiol 34 1425 1434

166. LexchinJ

BeroLA

DjulbegovicB

ClarkO

2003 Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ 326 1167 1170

167. Als-NielsenB

ChenW

GluudC

KjaergardLL

2003 Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: A reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 290 921 928

168. PeppercornJ

BloodE

WinerE

PartridgeA

2007 Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials. Cancer 109 1239 1246

169. YankV

RennieD

BeroLA

2007 Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: Retrospective cohort study. BMJ 335 1202 1205

170. JorgensenAW

HildenJ

GøtzschePC

2006 Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: Systematic review. BMJ 333 782

171. GotzschePC

HrobjartssonA

JohansenHK

HaahrMT

AltmanDG

2007 Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PLoS Med 4 e19 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040019

172. AkbariA

MayhewA

Al-AlawiM

GrimshawJ

WinkensR

2008 Interventions to improve outpatient referrals from primary care to secondary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 2: CD005471. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005471.pub2

173. DaviesP

BoruchR

2001 The Campbell Collaboration. BMJ 323 294 295

174. PawsonR

GreenhalghT

HarveyG

WalsheK

2005 Realist review—A new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy 10 (Suppl 1) 21 34

175. GreenhalghT

RobertG

MacfarlaneF

BateP

KyriakidouO

2005 Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med 61 417 430

176. LumleyT

2002 Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 21 2313 2324

177. SalantiG

HigginsJP

AdesAE

IoannidisJP

2008 Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res 17 279 301

178. AltmanDG

MoherD

2005 [Developing guidelines for reporting healthcare research: Scientific rationale and procedures.]. Med Clin (Barc) 125 (Suppl 1) 8 13

179. DelaneyA

BagshawSM

FerlandA

MannsB

LauplandKB

2005 A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care 9 R575 582

180. AltmanDG

SimeraI

HoeyJ

MoherD

SchulzK

2008 EQUATOR: Reporting guidelines for health research. Lancet 371 1149 1150

181. PlintAC

MoherD

MorrisonA

SchulzK

AltmanDG

2006 Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 185 263 267

182. SimeraI

AltmanDG

MoherD

SchulzKF

HoeyJ

2008 Guidelines for reporting health research: The EQUATOR network's survey of guideline authors. PLoS Med 5 e139 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050139

183. LastJM

2001 A dictionary of epidemiology Oxford Oxford University Press & International Epidemiological Association

184. AntmanEM

LauJ

KupelnickB

MostellerF

ChalmersTC

1992 A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 268 240 248

185. OxmanAD

GuyattGH

1993 The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci 703 125 133discussion 133–124

186. O'ConnorD

GreenS

HigginsJPT

2008 Chapter 5: Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies.

HigginsJPT

GreenS

Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration Available: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/. Accessed 26 May 2009

187. McDonaghM

WhitingP

BradleyM

CooperJ

SuttonA

2000 A systematic review of public water fluoridation. Protocol changes (Appendix M). NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination York University of York Available: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/appm.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2009

188. MoherD

CookDJ

JadadAR

TugwellP

MoherM

1999 Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: Implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess 3 i iv, 1–98

189. DevereauxPJ

ChoiPT

El-DikaS

BhandariM

MontoriVM

2004 An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. J Clin Epidemiol 57 1232 1236

190. SoaresHP

DanielsS

KumarA

ClarkeM

ScottC

2004 Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: Observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. BMJ 328 22 24

191. LiberatiA

HimelHN

ChalmersTC

1986 A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 4 942 951

192. MoherD

JadadAR

NicholG

PenmanM

TugwellP

1995 Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 16 62 73

193. GreenlandS

O'RourkeK

2001 On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics 2 463 471

194. JüniP

WitschiA

BlochR

EggerM

1999 The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 282 1054 1060

195. FleissJL

1993 The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res 2 121 145

196. VillarJ

MackeyME

CarroliG

DonnerA

2001 Meta-analyses in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine: Comparison of fixed and random effects models. Stat Med 20 3635 3647

197. LauJ

IoannidisJP

SchmidCH

1998 Summing up evidence: One answer is not always enough. Lancet 351 123 127

198. DerSimonianR

LairdN

1986 Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7 177 188

199. HunterJE

SchmidtFL

2000 Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. Int J Sel Assess 8 275 292

200. DeeksJJ

AltmanDG

BradburnMJ

2001 Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis.

EggerM

Davey SmithG

AltmanDG

Systematic reviews in healthcare: Meta-analysis in context London BMJ Publishing Group 285 312

201. WarnDE

ThompsonSG

SpiegelhalterDJ

2002 Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes: Methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales. Stat Med 21 1601 1623

202. HigginsJP

ThompsonSG

DeeksJJ

AltmanDG

2003 Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327 557 560

203. HigginsJP

ThompsonSG

2002 Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21 1539 1558

204. Huedo-MedinaTB

Sanchez-MecaJ

Marin-MartinezF

BotellaJ

2006 Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods 11 193 206

205. ThompsonSG

TurnerRM

WarnDE

2001 Multilevel models for meta-analysis, and their application to absolute risk differences. Stat Methods Med Res 10 375 392

206. DickersinK

2005 Publication bias: Recognising the problem, understanding its origin and scope, and preventing harm.

RothsteinHR

SuttonAJ

BorensteinM

Publication bias in meta-analysis—Prevention, assessment and adjustments West Sussex John Wiley & Sons 356

207. SchererRW

LangenbergP

von ElmE

2007 Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 2: MR000005. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3

208. KrzyzanowskaMK

PintilieM

TannockIF

2003 Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA 290 495 501

209. HopewellS

ClarkeM

2001 Methodologists and their methods. Do methodologists write up their conference presentations or is it just 15 minutes of fame? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 17 601 603

210. GhersiD

2006 Issues in the design, conduct and reporting of clinical trials that impact on the quality of decision making. PhD thesis Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney

211. von ElmE

RollinA

BlumleA

HuwilerK

WitschiM

2008 Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: Longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee. Swiss Med Wkly 138 197 203

212. SterneJA

EggerM

2001 Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 54 1046 1055

213. HarbordRM

EggerM

SterneJA

2006 A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 25 3443 3457

214. PetersJL

SuttonAJ

JonesDR

AbramsKR

RushtonL

2006 Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA 295 676 680

215. RothsteinHR

SuttonAJ

BorensteinM

2005 Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments West Sussex John Wiley & Sons

216. LauJ

IoannidisJP

TerrinN

SchmidCH

OlkinI

2006 The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 333 597 600

217. TerrinN

SchmidCH

LauJ

2005 In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 58 894 901

218. EggerM

Davey SmithG

SchneiderM

MinderC

1997 Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315 629 634

219. IoannidisJP

TrikalinosTA

2007 An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clin Trials 4 245 253

220. SterneJAC

EggerM

MoherD

2008 Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases.

HigginsJPT

GreenS

Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.0 [updated February 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration Available: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/. Accessed 26 May 2009

Štítky
Interné lekárstvo

Článok vyšiel v časopise

PLOS Medicine


2009 Číslo 7
Najčítanejšie tento týždeň
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
Kurzy

Zvýšte si kvalifikáciu online z pohodlia domova

Získaná hemofilie - Povědomí o nemoci a její diagnostika
nový kurz

Eozinofilní granulomatóza s polyangiitidou
Autori: doc. MUDr. Martina Doubková, Ph.D.

Všetky kurzy
Prihlásenie
Zabudnuté heslo

Zadajte e-mailovú adresu, s ktorou ste vytvárali účet. Budú Vám na ňu zasielané informácie k nastaveniu nového hesla.

Prihlásenie

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa