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 lekárstvoČlánok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS Medicine
2009 Číslo 7
- Parazitičtí červi v terapii Crohnovy choroby a dalších zánětlivých autoimunitních onemocnění
- Pleiotropní účinky statinů na kardiovaskulární systém
- Statiny indukovaná myopatie: Jak na diferenciální diagnostiku?
- DESATORO PRE PRAX: Aktuálne odporúčanie ESPEN pre nutričný manažment u pacientov s COVID-19
- Význam hydratace při hojení ran
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
- The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
- The US Food and Drug Administration Provides a Pathway for Licensing Vaccines for Global Diseases
- Ethics Without Borders