How to Distinguish Best Evidence from Bias: A Basic Guide to Understanding a Systematic Review

Overview

Journal Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open

Specialty General Surgery

Date 2020 Apr 21

PMID 32309077

Authors

Cristina Pires Camargo

Rolf Gemperli

Rod J Rohrich

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

A systematic review is a powerful tool to synthesize and show concise and robust evidence for clinical practice. Thus, the inclusion of biased, low-quality studies should be avoided, for otherwise, the resulting systematic review will not reflect the best medical evidence. Because the methodology of systematic review is relatively new, this review aims to present basic rules to guide the reader's interpretation of a systematic review.

References

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000097. PMC: 2707599. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. View

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015; 350:g7647. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7647. View

Downs S, Black N . The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998; 52(6):377-84. PMC: 1756728. DOI: 10.1136/jech.52.6.377. View

Higgins J, Thompson S, Spiegelhalter D . A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009; 172(1):137-159. PMC: 2667312. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00552.x. View

Zhang L, Gerson L, Maluf-Filho F . Systematic review and meta-analysis in GI endoscopy: Why do we need them? How can we read them? Should we trust them?. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 88(1):139-150. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.03.001. View

Berlin J, Antman E . Advantages and limitations of metaanalytic regressions of clinical trials data. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1994; Doc No 134:[8425 words; 84 paragraphs]. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(92)90151-o. View

Higgins J, Thompson S . Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med. 2004; 23(11):1663-82. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1752. View

Akobeng A . Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child. 2005; 90(8):845-8. PMC: 1720526. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2004.058230. View

Stavrou A, Challoumas D, Dimitrakakis G . Archibald Cochrane (1909-1988): the father of evidence-based medicine. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013; 18(1):121-4. PMC: 3867052. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivt451. View

10.

El-Kadiki A, Sutton A . Role of multivitamins and mineral supplements in preventing infections in elderly people: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005; 330(7496):871. PMC: 556155. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38399.495648.8F. View

11.

Smith R, Rennie D . Evidence based medicine--an oral history. BMJ. 2014; 348:g371. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g371. View

12.

Sedgwick P, Marston L . How to read a funnel plot in a meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015; 351:h4718. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h4718. View

13.

Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche P, Ioannidis J . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009; 339:b2700. PMC: 2714672. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2700. View

14.

Paez A . Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med. 2017; 10(3):233-240. DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12266. View

15.

. How to read clinical journals: I. why to read them and how to start reading them critically. Can Med Assoc J. 1981; 124(5):555-8. PMC: 1705173. View

16.

Collier R . Dr. David Sackett, a giant among giants (1934-2015). CMAJ. 2015; 187(9):640-641. PMC: 4467924. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5072. View

17.

Kuss O, von Salviati B, Borgermann J . Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score analyses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010; 140(4):829-35, 835.e1-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.12.022. View

18.

Jadad A, Moore R, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds D, Gavaghan D . Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials. 1996; 17(1):1-12. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4. View

19.

Sterne J, Hernan M, Reeves B, Savovic J, Berkman N, Viswanathan M . ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016; 355:i4919. PMC: 5062054. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i4919. View

20.

Montgomery P, Movsisyan A, Grant S, Macdonald G, Rehfuess E . Considerations of complexity in rating certainty of evidence in systematic reviews: a primer on using the GRADE approach in global health. BMJ Glob Health. 2019; 4(Suppl 1):e000848. PMC: 6350753. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000848. View