Eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals: a methodological review

McCrae, Niall; Purssell, Edward

doi:10.1111/jep.12448

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…excluding protocol violators or individuals that were lost for follow-up). In a recent studies, McCrae et al [56] found that study eligibility criteria for primary study inclusion, search data restrictions and use of unpublished data was often not properly documented in published reviews. Further, Akl et al [57] demonstrated that most systematic reviews do not check for, or account for, missing data.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionRapid reviews (RR), using abbreviated systematic review (SR) methods, are becoming more popular among decision-makers. This World Health Organization commissioned study sought to summarize RR methods, identify differences, and highlight potential biases between RR and SR.MethodsReview of RR methods (Key Question 1 [KQ1]), meta-epidemiologic studies comparing reliability/ validity of RR and SR methods (KQ2), and their potential associated biases (KQ3). We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and checked reference lists, used personal contacts, and crowdsourcing (e.g. email listservs). Selection and data extraction was conducted by one reviewer (KQ1) or two reviewers independently (KQ2-3).ResultsAcross all KQs, we identified 42,743 citations through the literature searches. KQ1: RR methods from 29 organizations were reviewed. There was no consensus on which aspects of the SR process to abbreviate. KQ2: Studies comparing the conclusions of RR and SR (n = 9) found them to be generally similar. Where major differences were identified, it was attributed to the inclusion of evidence from different sources (e.g. searching different databases or including different study designs). KQ3: Potential biases introduced into the review process were well-identified although not necessarily supported by empirical evidence, and focused mainly on selective outcome reporting and publication biases.ConclusionRR approaches are context and organization specific. Existing comparative evidence has found similar conclusions derived from RR and SR, but there is a lack of evidence comparing the potential of bias in both evidence synthesis approaches. Further research and decision aids are needed to help decision makers and reviewers balance the benefits of providing timely evidence with the potential for biased findings.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That way, the readers will understand that these studies were not missed in the search. 31 Ideally, the decision about eligibility of studies should be made while investigators are blinded to the results of the study, the source of publication, and the institution where the study was performed. This is recommended because investigators selecting studies may be more likely to include publications that report results consistent with their preconceived ideas and may be more likely to choose studies published in prestigious journals or conducted by specific investigators.…”

Section: Search Strategy: Study Eligibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological Standards for Meta-Analyses and Qualitative Systematic Reviews of Cardiac Prevention and Treatment Studies: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Rao¹,

López-Jiménez²,

Boyd³

et al. 2017

Circulation

201

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meta-analyses are becoming increasingly popular, especially in the fields of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment. They are often considered to be a reliable source of evidence for making healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, problems among meta-analyses such as the misapplication and misinterpretation of statistical methods and tests are long-standing and widespread. The purposes of this statement are to review key steps in the development of a metaanalysis and to provide recommendations that will be useful for carrying out meta-analyses and for readers and journal editors, who must interpret the findings and gauge methodological quality. To make the statement practical and accessible, detailed descriptions of statistical methods have been omitted. Based on a survey of cardiovascular metaanalyses, published literature on methodology, expert consultation, and consensus among the writing group, key recommendations are provided. Recommendations reinforce several current practices, including protocol registration; comprehensive search strategies; methods for data extraction and abstraction; methods for identifying, measuring, and dealing with heterogeneity; and statistical methods for pooling results. Other practices should be discontinued, including the use of levels of evidence and evidence hierarchies to gauge the value and impact of different study designs (including meta-analyses) and the use of structured tools to assess the quality of studies to be included in a metaanalysis. We also recommend choosing a pooling model for conventional meta-analyses (fixed effect or random effects) on the basis of clinical and methodological similarities among studies to be included, rather than the results of a test for statistical heterogeneity. CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES D espite the increasing popularity of meta-analyses and systematic reviews in general, problems with methodology are widespread and frequently undermine the credibility of the results. New guidance is needed for both researchers who carry out meta-analyses and systematic reviews in general and the consumers who read them and rely on the results. The term meta-analysis was coined in 1976 by the American statistician Gene Glass, who wrote, "I use it to refer to the statistical analysis of a large collection of results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating findings. It connotes a rigorous alternative to the casual, narrative discussions of research studies which typify our attempts to make sense of the rapidly expanding literature."1 Meta-analyses are a subcategory of the broader category of studies known as systematic reviews.Qualitative systematic reviews include explicit and detailed methods for identification, selection, and grading the quality of individual studies and overall evidence but do not pool results across studies. Meta-analysis is synonymous with the term quantitative systematic review and by definition includes pooling of results across studies. The emphasis in this statement is on metaanalysis bec...

show abstract

The Aim and Scope of a Systematic Review: A Logical Approach

Purssell

McCrae

2020

How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals: a methodological review

Cited by 6 publications

References 39 publications

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

Methodological Standards for Meta-Analyses and Qualitative Systematic Reviews of Cardiac Prevention and Treatment Studies: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

The Aim and Scope of a Systematic Review: A Logical Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About