+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls



Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls



European Heart Journal 35(47): 3336-3345



Systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for a more transparent and objective appraisal of the evidence. They may decrease the number of false-negative results and prevent delays in the introduction of effective interventions into clinical practice. However, as for any other tool, their misuse can result in severely misleading results. In this article,we discuss the main steps that should be taken when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, namely the preparation of a review protocol, identification of eligible trials, and data extraction, pooling of treatment effects across trials, investigation of potential reasons for differences in treatment effects across trials, and complete reporting of the review methods and findings.We also discuss common pitfalls that should be avoided, including the use of quality assessment tools to derive summary quality scores, pooling of data across trials as if they belonged to a single large trial, and inappropriate uses of meta-regression that could result in misleading estimates of treatment effects because of regression to the mean or the ecological fallacy. If conducted and reported properly, systematic reviews and meta-analyses will increase our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the available evidence, which may eventually facilitate clinical decision making.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 056093430

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25416325

DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu424


Related references

Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 3: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials. Pain Physician 12(1): 35-72, 2009

Randomized Trials, Meta-Analyses, and Systematic Reviews. Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America 44(2): 295-305, 2018

Randomized Trials, Meta-Analyses, and Systematic Reviews: Using Examples from Rheumatology. Rheumatic Diseases Clinics of North America 44(2): 295-305, 2018

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials on Perioperative Outcomes. Anesthesia & Analgesia 121(4): 1104-1107, 2015

A Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews in Dentistry, Part 1: Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice 17(4): 389-398, 2017

Randomized trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses: basic criteria in the world of scientific evidence. Rivista di Psichiatria 47(1): 21-29, 2012

Prevention and control of neglected tropical diseases: overview of randomized trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 92(5): 356-366c, 2015

Deconstructing evidence in orthodontics: making sense of systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses. World Journal of Orthodontics 9(2): 167-176, 2008

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials on Perioperative Outcomes: An Urgent Need for Critical Reappraisal. Anesthesia and Analgesia 121(4): 1104-1107, 2015

Demographic characteristics of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials in orthodontic journals with impact factor. European Journal of Orthodontics 38(1): 57-65, 2015

A bibliometric study of the top 100 most-cited randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in endodontic journals. International Endodontic Journal 2019, 2019

On the criteria used for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses addressing adverse effects. European Journal of Epidemiology 30(3): 249-250, 2015

Meta-analyses in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine: comparison of fixed and random effects models. Statistics in Medicine 20(23): 3635-3647, 2001

Pitfalls of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Radiology 279(2): 652-652, 2016

Comparing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials with cohort studies: a paradigm of single-incision laparoscopic surgery. Hernia 20(1): 13-14, 2016