Systematic reviews and meta-analysis for the surgeon scientist
- 23 October 2006
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in British Journal of Surgery
- Vol. 93 (11), 1315-1324
- https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5596
Abstract
Background: Understanding of data‐reporting methods is imperative for correct interpretation of the medical literature as well as for proper performance of future clinical research. Recent developments in biostatistics have greatly changed the types of statistical analyses used and the minimum quality standards that must be maintained. Method: Different types of review are described, including systematic review with and without meta‐analysis. Minimum reporting standards, sources of bias, both quantitative and qualitative, and references are discussed. Results and Conclusion: Meta‐analysis has become a clearly defined technique, with reporting standards for both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. It is assuming a wider role in the surgical literature. Although many sources of bias exist, there are clear reporting standards and readers should be aware of these when studying the literature. Copyright © 2006 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 44 references indexed in Scilit:
- Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?The Lancet, 2000
- meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studiesBMJ, 1998
- Adhesion molecules as determinants of disease: From molecular biology to surgical researchBritish Journal of Surgery, 1996
- Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a tower of babel bias?Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- Best evidence synthesis: An intelligent alternative to meta-analysisJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviewsBMJ, 1994
- Should Unpublished Data Be Included in Meta-analyses?JAMA, 1993
- Publication bias and clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1987
- Perusing the literature: Comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal trials databaseControlled Clinical Trials, 1985
- Non-surgical management of peripheral vascular disease: a review.BMJ, 1980