How to review and assess a systematic review and meta-analysis article: a methodological study (secondary publication)
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become central in many research fields, particularly medicine. They offer the highest level of evidence in evidence-based medicine and support the development and revision of clinical practice guidelines, which offer recommendations for clinicians caring for patients with specific diseases and conditions. This review summarizes the concepts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and provides guidance on reviewing and assessing such papers. A systematic review refers to a review of a research question that uses explicit and systematic methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research. In contrast, a meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis that combines individual results on the same research question to estimate the common or mean effect. Conducting a meta-analysis involves defining a research topic, selecting a study design, searching literature in electronic databases, selecting relevant studies, and conducting the analysis. One can assess the findings of a meta-analysis by interpreting a forest plot and a funnel plot and by examining heterogeneity. When reviewing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, several essential points must be considered, including the originality and significance of the work, the comprehensiveness of the database search, the selection of studies based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, subgroup analyses by various factors, and the interpretation of the results based on the levels of evidence. This review will provide readers with helpful guidance to help them read, understand, and evaluate these articles.
Abstract
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become central in many research fields, particularly medicine. They offer the highest level of evidence in evidence-based medicine and support the development and revision of clinical practice guidelines, which offer recommendations for clinicians caring for patients with specific diseases and conditions. This review summarizes the concepts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and provides guidance on reviewing and assessing such papers. A systematic review refers to a review of a research question that uses explicit and systematic methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research. In contrast, a meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis that combines individual results on the same research question to estimate the common or mean effect. Conducting a meta-analysis involves defining a research topic, selecting a study design, searching literature in electronic databases, selecting relevant studies, and conducting the analysis. One can assess the findings of a meta-analysis by interpreting a forest plot and a funnel plot and by examining heterogeneity. When reviewing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, several essential points must be considered, including the originality and significance of the work, the comprehensiveness of the database search, the selection of studies based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, subgroup analyses by various factors, and the interpretation of the results based on the levels of evidence. This review will provide readers with helpful guidance to help them read, understand, and evaluate these articles.
참고문헌 (22)
- Borenstein M, "Introduction to meta-analysis" (2009), Wiley
- Gilbert R, "Infant sleeping position and the sudden infant death syndrome : systematic review of observational studies and historical review of recommendations from 1940 to 2002", Int J Epidemiol, 34, pp.874~887 (2005)[DOI]
- "Types of journal articles" (2023)[URL]
- "Biology 303L: ecology and evolution. Original research articles" (2022)[URL]
- MacKenzie H, "Systematic reviews : what they are, why they are important, and how to get involved", J Clin Prev Cardiol, 1, pp.193~202 (2012)
- "Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6" (2006)[URL]
- "Systematic review, scoping review, narrative review: what’s the difference?" (2023)[URL]
- Pearson K, "Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics", Br Med J, 2, pp.1243~1246 (1904)
- O’Rourke K, "A historical perspective on meta-analysis : dealing quantitatively with varying study results", J R Soc Med, 100, pp.579~582 (2007)[DOI]
- Glass GV, "Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research", Educ Res, 5, pp.3~8 (1976)[DOI]
- "Overview of clinical practice guidelines" (2023)[URL]
- "Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services" (1972)[URL]
- Sackett DL, "Evidence based medicine : what it is and what it isn’t", BMJ, 312, pp.71~72 (1996)[DOI]
- Guyatt GH, "Evidence-based medicine", ACP J Club, 114, pp.A16~ (1991)[DOI]
- Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, "The periodic health examination", Can Med Assoc J, 121, pp.1193~1254 (1979)
- Murad MH, "New evidence pyramid", Evid Based Med, 21, pp.125~127 (2016)[DOI]
- Egger M, "Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test", BMJ, 315, pp.629~634 (1997)[DOI]
- Higgins JP, "Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis", Stat Med, 21, pp.1539~1558 (2002)[DOI]
- Higgins JP, "Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses", BMJ, 327, pp.557~560 (2003)[DOI]
- "Resources for reviewers" (2023)[URL]
- Bagnardi V, "Light alcohol drinking and cancer : a meta-analysis", Ann Oncol, 24, pp.301~308 (2013)[DOI]
- Myung SK, "Erroneous conclusions about the association between light alcohol drinking and the risk of cancer: comments on Bagnardi et al.'s meta-analysis", Ann Oncol, 27, pp.2139~ (2016)[DOI]