you're reading...
...Other Thoughts

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: When One Study Is Just not Enough

  1. Amit X. Garg*,
  2. Dan Hackam  ,
  3. Marcello Tonelli 

+Author Affiliations

  1. *Division of Nephrology and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Western Ontario, London, and Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Toronto, and Cardiac Rehabilitation and Secondary Prevention Program, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, Toronto, Ontario, and Division of Nephrology and Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, and Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  1. Correspondence:
    Dr. Amit Garg, London Kidney Clinical Research Unit, Room ELL-101, Westminster, London Health Sciences Centre, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, Ontario N6A 4G5, Canada. Phone:  519-685-8502; Fax: 519-685-8072; E-mail: amit.garg@lhsc.on.ca

We live in the information age, and the practice of medicine is becoming increasingly specialized. In the biomedical literature, the number of published studies has dramatically increased: There are now more than 15 million citations in MEDLINE, with 10,000 to 20,000 new citations added each week (1). Multiple relevant studies usually guide most clinical decisions. These studies often vary in their design; methodologic quality; population studied; and the intervention, test, or condition considered. Because even highly cited trials may be challenged or refuted over time (2), clinical decision-making requires ongoing reconciliation of studies that provide different answers to the same question. Both clinicians and researchers can also benefit from a summary of where uncertainty remains. Because it is often impractical for readers to track down and review all of the primary studies (3), review articles are an important source of summarized evidence on a particular topic (4).

Narrative Review, Systematic Review, and Meta-analysis

Review articles have traditionally taken the form of a narrative review, whereby a content expert writes about a particular field, condition, or treatment (57). Narrative reviews have many benefits, including a broad overview of relevant information tempered by years of practical knowledge from an experienced author. Indeed, this article itself is in a narrative format, from authors who have published a number of meta-analyses in previous years.

In some circumstances, a reader wants to become very knowledgeable about specific details of a topic and wants some assurance that the information presented is both comprehensive and unbiased. A narrative review typically uses an implicit process to compile evidence to support the statements being made. The reader often cannot tell which recommendations were based on the author’s clinical experience, the breadth to which available literature was identified and compiled, and the reasons that some studies were given more emphasis than others. It is sometimes uncertain whether the author of a narrative review selectively cited reports that reinforced his or her preconceived ideas or promoted specific views of a topic. Also, a quantitative summary of the literature is often absent in a narrative review.

A systematic review uses a process to identify comprehensively all studies for a specific focused question (drawn from research and other sources), appraise the methods of the studies, summarize the results, present key findings, identify reasons for different results across studies, and cite limitations of current knowledge (8,9). In a systematic review, all decisions used to compile information are meant to be explicit, allowing the reader to gauge for him- or herself the quality of the review process and the potential for bias. In this way, systematic reviews tend to be more transparent than their narrative cousins, although they too can be biased if the selection or emphasis of certain primary studies is influenced by the preconceived notions of the authors or funding sources (10).

Depending on the nature of the data, the results of a systematic review can be summarized in text or graphic form. In graphic form, it is common for different trials to be depicted in a plot where the point estimate and 95% confidence interval for each study are presented on an individual line (11). When results are mathematically combined (a process sometimes referred to as pooling), this is referred to as meta-analysis. Graphically, the pooled result is often presented as a diamond at the bottom of the plot.

When performing a meta-analysis, a review team usually combines aggregate-level data reported in each primary study (point and variance estimate of the summary measure). On occasion, a review team will obtain all of the individual patient data from each of the primary studies (12,13). Although challenging to conduct (14), individual patient meta-analyses may have certain advantages over aggregate-level analyses. As highlighted in a review of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for nondiabetic kidney disease, this includes the use of common definitions, coding and cutoff points between studies, addressing questions not examined in the original publication, and a better sense of the impact of individual patient (versus study level) characteristics (12,15).

As first highlighted a decade ago (16), the number of systematic reviews in nephrology and other fields has increased dramatically with time, paralleling the rapid growth of biomedical literature during the past half century. Initiatives such as the Cochrane Collaboration have further increased the profile and rigor of the systematic review process (details of the structured process of Cochrane systematic reviews are available through their Web site) (17,18). From 1990 to 2005, there were more than 400 systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the discipline of nephrology (Figure 1). Of these reviews, 40% pertained to chronic kidney disease or glomerulonephritis and 20, 16, 15, and 7% pertained to kidney transplantation, dialysis, acute kidney injury, and pediatric nephrology, respectively. As a publication type, however, systematic reviews have not been without controversy: Some authors consider a meta-analysis the best possible use of all available data, whereas others question whether they add anything meaningful to scientific knowledge (19). The strengths and weaknesses of this publication type are described next.

Figure 1.

There have been more than 400 systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the discipline of nephrology since 1990, with the annual number increasing with time. Frequencies were estimated from a MEDLINE and EMBASE search performed by an experienced renal librarian in December 2006. Citations were reviewed by a nephrologist for relevance. Duplicate publications from the same group of authors were counted only once.

Strengths of Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Physicians make better clinical decisions when they understand the circumstances and preferences of their patients and combine their personal experience with clinical evidence underlying the available options (20). The public also expects that their physicians will integrate research findings into practice in a timely way (21). Thus, sound clinical or health policy decisions are facilitated by reviewing the available evidence (and its limitations), understanding reasons why some studies differ in their results (a finding sometimes referred to as heterogeneity among the primary studies), coming up with an assessment of the expected effect of an intervention or exposure (for questions of therapy or etiology), and then integrating the new information with other relevant treatment, patient, and health care system factors.

In this respect, reading a properly conducted systematic review is an efficient way to become familiar with the best available research evidence for a focused clinical question. The review team may also have obtained information from the primary authors which was not available in the original reports. The presented summary allows the reader to take into account a whole range of relevant findings from research on a particular topic. The process can also establish whether the scientific findings are consistent and generalizable across populations, settings, and treatment variations and whether findings vary significantly by particular subgroups. Again, the potential strength of a systematic review lies in the transparency of each phase of the synthesis process, allowing the reader to focus on the merits of each decision made in compiling the information, rather than a simple contrast of one study to another as sometimes occurs in other types of reviews.

For example, studies demonstrating a significant effect of treatment are more likely to be published than studies with negative findings, are more likely to be published in English, and more likely to be cited by others (2227). A well-conducted systematic review attempts to reduce the possibility of bias in the method of identifying and selecting studies for review, by using a comprehensive search strategy and specifying inclusion criteria that ideally have not been influenced by a priori knowledge of the primary studies.

Mathematically combining data from a series of well-conducted primary studies may provide a more precise estimate of the underlying “true effect” than any individual study (28). In other words, by combining the samples of the individual studies, the size of the “overall sample” is increased, enhancing the statistical power of the analysis and reducing the size of the confidence interval for the point estimate of the effect. It is also more efficient to communicate a pooled summary than to describe the results for each of the individual studies. Sometimes, if the treatment effect in small trials shows a nonsignificant trend toward efficacy, then pooling the results may establish the benefits of therapy (16). For example, 10 trials examined whether ACE inhibitors were more effective than other antihypertensive agents for the prevention of nondiabetic kidney failure (29). Many of the 95% confidence intervals for the estimate provided by each study overlapped with a finding of no effect; however, the overall pooled estimate established a benefit of ACE inhibitors.

For these reasons, a meta-analysis of similar, well-conducted, randomized, controlled trials has been considered one of the highest levels of evidence (3032). It is important to stress that the primary trials all have to be conducted with high methodologic rigor for the meta-analysis to be definitive. Alternatively, when the existing studies have important scientific and methodologic limitations, including smaller sized samples (which is more often the case), the systematic review may identify where gaps exist in the available literature. In this case, an exploratory meta-analysis can provide a plausible estimate of effect that can be tested in subsequent studies (33,34).

Limitations of Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This type of publication type has many potential limitations that should be appreciated by all readers. First, the summary provided in a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature is only as reliable as the methods used to estimate the effect in each of the primary studies. In other words, conducting a meta-analysis does not overcome problems that were inherent in the design and execution of the primary studies. It also does not correct biases as a result of selective publication, whereby studies that report dramatic effects are more likely to be identified, summarized, and subsequently pooled in meta-analysis than studies that report smaller effect sizes (an issue referred to as publication bias). Because more than three quarters of meta-analyses did not report any empirical assessment of publication bias (35), the true frequency of this form of bias is unknown.

Controversies also arise around the interpretation of summarized results, particularly when the results of discordant studies are pooled in meta-analysis (36). The review process inevitably identifies studies that are diverse in their design, methodologic quality, specific interventions used, and types of patients studied. There is often some subjectivity when deciding how similar studies must be before pooling is appropriate. Combining studies of poor quality with those that were more rigorously conducted may not be useful and can lead to worse estimates of the underlying truth or a false sense of precision around the truth (36). A false sense of precision may also arise when various subgroups of patients defined by characteristics such as their age or gender differ in their observed response. In such cases, reporting an aggregate pooled effect might be misleading if there are important reasons to explain variable treatment effects across different types of patients (3640).

Finally, simply labeling a manuscript as a “systematic review” or “meta-analysis” does not guarantee that the review was conducted or reported with due rigor (41). To reduce the chance of arriving at misleading conclusions, guidelines on the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews were recently published (42,43); however, important methodologic flaws of systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals have been well described (4454). For example, of the 86 renal systematic reviews published in 2005, the majority (58%) had important methodologic flaws (Mrkobrada M, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Haynes RB, Iansavichus AV, Rehman F, and Garg AX, submitted). The most common flaws among these renal reviews were failure to assess the methodologic quality of included primary studies and failure to avoid bias in study inclusion (Mrkobrada M, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Haynes RB, Iansavichus AV, Rehman F, and Garg AX, submitted). In some cases, industry-supported reviews of drugs have had fewer reservations about methodologic limitations of the included trials than rigorously conducted Cochrane reviews on the same topic (10); however, the hypothesis that less rigorous reviews more often report positive conclusions than good-quality reviews of the same topic has not been borne out in empirical assessment (48,53,55). Nonetheless, like all good consumers, users of systematic reviews should carefully consider the quality of the product and adhere to the dictum “caveat emptor”: Let the buyer beware. The limitations described in this section may explain differences in the results of meta-analyses as compared with subsequent large, randomized, controlled trials, which have occurred in approximately one third of cases (56).

How to Appraise Critically a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Users of systematic reviews need to assure themselves that the underlying methods used to assemble relevant information were sound. Before considering the results or how the information could be appropriately applied in patient care (9), there are a few questions that the reader can ask him- or herself when assessing the methodologic quality of a systematic review (Table 1).

Table 1.

Questions to ask when assessing the quality of a systematic reviewa

Was the Review Conducted According to a Prespecified Protocol?

It is reassuring if a review was guided by a written protocol (prepared in advance) that describes the research question(s), hypotheses, review method, and plan for how the data will be extracted and compiled. Such an approach minimizes the likelihood that the results or the expectations of the reviewing team influenced study inclusion or synthesis. Although most systematic reviews are conducted in a retrospective manner, reviews and meta-analyses can in theory be defined at the time several similar trials are being planned or under way. This allows a set of specific hypotheses, data collection procedures, and analytic strategies to be specified in advance before any of the results from the primary studies are known. Such a prospective effort may provide more reliable answers to medically relevant questions than the traditional retrospective approach (41).

Was the Question Focused?

Clinical questions often deal with issues of treatment, etiology, prognosis, and diagnosis. A well-formulated question usually specifies the patient’s problem or diagnosis, the intervention or exposure of interest, any comparison group (if relevant), and the primary and secondary outcomes of interest (57).

Were the “Right” Types of Studies Eligible for the Review?

Different study designs can be used to answer different clinical questions. Randomized, controlled trials; observational studies; and cross-sectional diagnostic studies may each be appropriate depending on the primary question posed in the review. When examining the eligible criteria for study inclusion, the reader should feel confident that a potential bias in the selection of studies was avoided. Specifically, the reader should ask her- or himself whether the eligibility criteria for study inclusion were appropriate for the question asked. Whether the right types of studies were selected for the review also depends on the depth and breadth of the underlying literature search.

For example, some review teams will consider only studies that were published in English. There is evidence that journals from certain countries publish a higher proportion of positive trials than others (58). Excluding non-English studies seemed to change the results of some reviews (59,60) but not others (61,62).

Some review teams use broad criteria for their inclusion of primary studies (e.g., effects of agents that block the renin-angiotensin system on renal outcomes [63]), whereas other teams use more narrow inclusion criteria (e.g., restricting the analysis only to patients who have diabetes without evidence of nephropathy [64]). There is often no single correct approach; however, the conclusions of any meta-analysis that is highly sensitive to altering the entry criteria of included studies should be interpreted with some caution (25). For example, two different review teams considered whether synthetic dialysis membranes resulted in better clinical outcomes compared with cellulose-based membranes in patients with acute renal failure. In one meta-analysis (65) but not the other (66), synthetic membranes reduced the chance for death. The discordant results were due to the inclusion of a study that did not meet eligibility for the second review (67).

Was the Method of Identifying All Relevant Information Comprehensive?

Identifying relevant studies for a given clinical question among the many potential sources of information is usually a laborious process (68). Biomedical journals are the most common source of information, and bibliographic databases are frequently used to search for relevant articles. MEDLINE currently indexes approximately 4800 medical journals and contains 13 million citations (69). Similarly, EMBASE indexes approximately 5000 medical journals and contains more than 11 million records. There are some key differences between EMBASE and MEDLINE, and the review team should have searched both databases (7072). For example, EMBASE provides the best coverage of European research as well as pharmaceutical research including renal adverse events (73). Positive studies may be more often published in journals that are indexed in MEDLINE, compared with nonindexed journals (25).

Depending on the question posed, other databases may also have been searched. For example, if a team is summarizing the effects of exercise training in patients who receive maintenance hemodialysis, then searching the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) database would be appropriate (74). Alternatively, the ECONOLIT database may be useful for identifying information on the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by living kidney donors (75). As a supplementary method of identifying information, searching databases such as the Science Citation Index (which identifies all articles that cite a relevant article), as well as newer Internet search engines such as Google Scholar and Elsevier’s Scirus, can be useful for identifying articles that are not indexed well in traditional bibliographic databases (76). Searching bibliographies of retrieved articles can also identify relevant articles that were missed.

Whatever bibliographic database was used, the review team should have used a search strategy that maximized the identification of relevant articles (77,78). Because there is some subjectivity in screening databases, citations should be reviewed independently and in duplicate by two members of the reviewing team, with the full-text article retrieved for any citation deemed relevant by any of the reviewers. There is also some subjectivity in assessing the eligibility of each full-text article, and the risk for incorrectly discarding relevant reports is reduced when two reviewers independently perform each assessment in a reliable manner (79).

Important sources of information other than journal articles should not be overlooked. Conference proceedings, abstracts, books, and manufacturers all can be sources of potentially valuable information. Inquiries to experts, including those listed in trial registries, may have also proved useful (28).

A comprehensive search of available literature reduces the possibility of publication bias, which occurs when studies with statistically significant results are more likely to be published and cited (80,81). It is interesting that some recent reviews of acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast nephropathy analyzed as few as five studies, despite being submitted for publication almost 1 yr after publication of a review of 12 studies (82). Although there are many potential reasons for this, one cannot exclude the possibility that some search strategies missed eligible trials. In addition to a comprehensive search method, which makes it unlikely that relevant studies were missed, it is often reassuring if the review team used graphic and statistical methods to confirm that there was little chance that publication bias influenced the results (83).

Was the Data Abstraction from Each Study Appropriate?

In compiling relevant information, the review team should have used a rigorous and reproducible method of abstracting all relevant data from the primary studies. Often two reviewers abstract key information from each primary study, including study and patient characteristics, setting, and details about the intervention, exposure, or diagnostic test as is appropriate. Language translators may be needed. Teams who conduct their review with due rigor will indicate that they contacted the primary authors from each of the primary studies to confirm the accuracy of abstracted data as well as to provide additional relevant information that was not provided in the primary report. Some authors will go through the additional effort of blinding or masking the results from other study characteristics so that data abstraction is as objective as possible (84,85).

One element that should have been abstracted is the methodologic quality of each primary study (recognizing this is not always as straightforward as it may first seem) (8691). The question to be posed by the reader is whether the reviewing team considered if each of the primary studies was designed, conducted, and analyzed in a way to minimize or avoid biases in the results (92). For randomized, controlled trials, lack of concealment of allocation, inadequate generation of the allocation sequence, and lack of double blinding can exaggerate estimates of the treatment effect (54,90,93). The value of abstracting such data is that it may help to explain important differences in the results among the primary studies (90).

For example, long-term risk estimates can become unreliable when participants are lost to study follow-up; those who participate in follow-up often systematically differ from nonparticipants. For this reason, prognosis studies are vulnerable to bias, unless the loss to follow-up is less than 20% (94). In a systematic review of 49 studies on the renal prognosis of diarrhea associated hemolytic uremic syndrome, on average, 21% of patients were lost to follow-up (range 0 to 59% across studies) (95). It was hypothesized that patients who were lost to follow-up would contribute to worse estimates of long-term prognosis because they are typically healthier than those who continue to be followed by their nephrologists. Indeed, studies with a higher proportion of patients lost to follow-up demonstrated a higher proportion of patients with long-term renal sequelae, explaining 28% of the between-study variability.

How Was the Information Synthesized and Summarized?

In cases in which the primary studies differ in the design, populations studied, interventions and comparisons used, or outcomes measured, it may have been appropriate for the review team simply to report the results descriptively using text and tables. When the primary studies are similar in these characteristics and the studies provide a similar estimate of a true effect, then meta-analysis may have been used to derive a more precise estimate of this effect (96). In meta-analysis, data from the individual studies are not simply combined as though they were from a single study; rather, greater weights are given to the results from studies that provide more information, because they are likely to be closer to true effect being estimated. Mathematically combining the results from the individual studies can be accomplished under the assumption of “fixed” effects or “random” effects model. Although a thorough description and merits of each approach is described elsewhere (97), it is fair to say that a random-effects model is more conservative than the fixed-effects approach, and a finding that is statistically significant with the latter but not the former should be viewed with skepticism.

Whenever individual studies are pooled in meta-analysis, it is important for the reader to determine whether it was reasonable to do so. One way to assess the similarity of various studies is to inspect the graphic display of the results, looking for similarities in the direction of the estimated effect. Even without considering any combined meta-analytic result, a reader becomes much more confident when a similar effect is being observed across many studies (i.e., the results have replicated across many studies). Some review teams may report a statistical test to determine how different the studies are from one another (as described previously, this is often termed heterogeneity of the study results [98]). This can help to prove or disprove that differences in the results that were observed between the primary studies is no different from what would be expected by chance. The most common statistical test to quantify heterogeneity is something called the Q statistic, which is similar in concept to a χ2 test. Although a nonsignificant result (by convention P > 0.1) is often taken to indicate that there are no substantial differences between the studies, it is important to consider that this test is underpowered, especially when the number of studies being pooled is small. A new statistic that is frequently being reported in meta-analysis these days is something called the I2 statistic. This statistic describes the percentage variability between the studies that is present beyond what would be expected by chance. When interpreting an I2 statistic, values of 0 to 30, 31 to 50, and >50% represent mild, moderate, and marked differences between the studies, respectively (99).

Whenever a review team identifies significant differences between the primary studies, they should try to explain possible reasons for these differences. This can be done in an informal way by analyzing certain types of studies separately or by selectively combining studies to determine which are particularly different from the remaining studies. Alternatively, a statistical approach can be taken to explore differences across studies, using a technique similar to linear or logistic regression (which at the study level is something called meta-regression) (100). Either way, a careful exploration of why study results differ can yield important information about potential determinants of the effect being observed.


Like all types of research, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have both potential strengths and weaknesses. With the growth of renal clinical studies, an increasing number of these types of summary publications will certainly become available to nephrologists, researchers, administrators, and policy makers who seek to keep abreast of recent developments. To maximize their advantages, it is essential that future reviews be conducted and reported properly, with judicious interpretation by the discriminating reader.




A.X.G. was supported by a Clinician Scientist Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). D.H. was supported by a CIHR Fellowship Award, the Chisholm Memorial Fellowship, and the Clinician-Scientist Training Program of the University of Toronto. M.T. was supported by a Population Health Investigator Award from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research and a New Investigator Award from the CIHR.

We thank Drs. Chi Hsu and Harvey Feldman for help and advice. We thank Arthur Iansavichus, MLIS, who helped compile systematic reviews published in the discipline of nephrology.


  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.


  1. National Library of Medicine: Fact Sheet Medline.http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/medline.html. Accessed November 15,2007
  2. Ioannidis JP: Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA294 :218– 228,2005
  3. Garg AX, Iansavichus AV, Kastner M, Walters LA, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, Yang RC, Rehman F, Haynes RB: Lost in publication: Half of all renal practice evidence is published in non-renal journals. Kidney Int70 :1995– 2005,2006
  4. Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, Walters L, Wilczynski N, Jedraszewski D, McKinlay J, Parrish R, McKibbon KA: Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners. JAMA295 :1801– 1808,2006
  5. Barrett BJ, Parfrey PS: Clinical practice: Preventing nephropathy induced by contrast medium. N Engl J Med354 :379– 386,2006
  6. Halloran PF: Immunosuppressive drugs for kidney transplantation. N Engl J Med351 :2715– 2729,2004
  7. Schrier RW, Wang W: Acute renal failure and sepsis. N Engl J Med351:159– 169,2004
  8. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB: Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med126 :376– 380,1997
  9. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH: Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.JAMA272 :1367– 1371,1994
  10. Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC: Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: Systematic review. BMJ333 :782 ,2006
  11. Lewis S, Clarke M: Forest plots: Trying to see the wood and the trees.BMJ322 :1479– 1480,2001
  12. Lyman GH, Kuderer NM: The strengths and limitations of meta-analyses based on aggregate data. BMC Med Res Methodol5 :14 ,2005
  13. Simmonds MC, Higgins JP, Stewart LA, Tierney JF, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG: Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: A review of methods used in practice. Clin Trials2 :209– 217,2005
  14. Schmid CH, Landa M, Jafar TH, Giatras I, Karim T, Reddy M, Stark PC, Levey AS: Constructing a database of individual clinical trials for longitudinal analysis. Control Clin Trials24 :324– 340,2003
  15. Schmid CH, Stark PC, Berlin JA, Landais P, Lau J: Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. J Clin Epidemiol57 :683– 697,2004
  16. Fouque D, Laville M, Haugh M, Boissel JP: Systematic reviews and their roles in promoting evidence-based medicine in renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant11 :2398– 2401,1996
  17. Campbell MK, Daly C, Wallace SA, Cody DJ, Donaldson C, Grant AM, Khan IH, Lawrence P, Vale L, MacLeod AM: Evidence-based medicine in nephrology: Identifying and critically appraising the literature. Nephrol Dial Transplant15 :1950– 1955,2000
  18. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at:http://www.cochrane.org/index.htm. Accessed March 3,2007
  19. Blettner M, Sauerbrei W, Schlehofer B, Scheuchenpflug T, Friedenreich C: Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol28 :1– 9,1999
  20. Haynes RB, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH: Physicians’ and patients’ choices in evidence based practice. BMJ324 :1350 ,2002
  21. Fones CS, Kua EH, Goh LG: ‘What makes a good doctor?’ Views of the medical profession and the public in setting priorities for medical education.Singapore Med J39 :537– 542,1998
  22. Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD: Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ323 :101– 105,2001
  23. Simes RJ: Confronting publication bias: A cohort design for meta-analysis.Stat Med6 :11– 29,1987
  24. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR: Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet337 :867– 872,1991
  25. Egger M, Smith GD: Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ316 :61– 66,1998
  26. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL: Factors influencing publication of research results: Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA267 :374– 378,1992
  27. Stern JM, Simes RJ: Publication bias: Evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ315 :640– 645,1997
  28. Pogue J, Yusuf S: Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet351 :47– 52,1998
  29. Giatras I, Lau J, Levey AS: Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on the progression of nondiabetic renal disease: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibition and Progressive Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med127 :337– 345,1997
  30. Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, Addrizzo-Harris D, Hylek EM, Phillips B, Raskob G, Lewis SZ, Schunemann H: Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: Report from an American College of Chest Physicians task force. Chest129 :174– 181,2006
  31. Hadorn DC, Baker D, Hodges JS, Hicks N: Rating the quality of evidence for clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol49 :749– 754,1996
  32. Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ, Cook DJ, Green L, Naylor CD, Wilson MC, Richardson WS: Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the Users’ Guides to patient care. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA284 :1290– 1296,2000
  33. Anello C, Fleiss JL: Exploratory or analytic meta-analysis: Should we distinguish between them? J Clin Epidemiol48 :109– 116,1995
  34. Boudville N, Prasad GV, Knoll G, Muirhead N, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Yang RC, Rosas-Arellano MP, Housawi A, Garg AX: Meta-analysis: Risk for hypertension in living kidney donors. Ann Intern Med145 :185– 196,2006
  35. Palma S, Delgado-Rodriguez M: Assessment of publication bias in meta-analyses of cardiovascular diseases. J Epidemiol Community Health59 :864– 869,2005
  36. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH: Summing up evidence: One answer is not always enough. Lancet351 :123– 127,1998
  37. Thompson SG: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ309 :1351– 1355,1994
  38. Berlin JA: Invited commentary: Benefits of heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol142 :383– 387,1995
  39. Davey SG, Egger M, Phillips AN: Meta-analysis: Beyond the grand mean? BMJ315 :1610– 1614,1997
  40. Thompson SG, Higgins JP: Treating individuals 4: Can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Lancet365 :341– 346,2005
  41. Yusuf S: Meta-analysis of randomized trials: Looking back and looking ahead. Control Clin Trials18 :594– 601,1997
  42. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF: Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet354:1896– 1900,1999
  43. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA283 :2008– 2012,2000
  44. Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, Jadad AR, Tramer MR, Walder B: Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: A critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg92 :700– 709,2001
  45. Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, Cook DJ, Doig C: Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: A critical appraisal. Ann Surg241:450– 459,2005
  46. Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, Slater L, Rowe BH: Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med38:518– 526,2001
  47. Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B: Meta-analysis: An update. Mt Sinai J Med63 :216– 224,1996
  48. Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, Knipschild PG, Bouter LM: The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation. JAMA274 :1942– 1948,1995
  49. Jadad AR, McQuay HJ: Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: A systematic qualitative review of their methodology. J Clin Epidemiol49 :235– 243,1996
  50. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, Moher D: Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA280 :278– 280,1998
  51. Bero LA, Rennie D: Influences on the quality of published drug studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care12 :209– 237,1996
  52. Barnes DE, Bero LA: Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA279 :1566– 1570,1998
  53. Jadad AR, Moher M, Browman GP, Booker L, Sigouin C, Fuentes M, Stevens R: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: Critical evaluation. BMJ320 :537– 540,2000
  54. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP: Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet352 :609– 613,1998
  55. Katerndahl DA, Lawler WR: Variability in meta-analytic results concerning the value of cholesterol reduction in coronary heart disease: A meta-meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol149 :429– 441,1999
  56. LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F: Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials.N Engl J Med337 :536– 542,1997
  57. Counsell C: Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med127 :380– 387,1997
  58. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R: Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials19 :159– 166,1998
  59. Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J: Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a Tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol48 :159– 163,1995
  60. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G: Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet350 :326– 329,1997
  61. Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, Schulz KF, Berlin JA, Jadad AR, Liberati A: What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol53 :964– 972,2000
  62. Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M: Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: Empirical study. Int J Epidemiol31 :115– 123,2002
  63. Casas JP, Chua W, Loukogeorgakis S, Vallance P, Smeeth L, Hingorani AD, MacAllister RJ: Effect of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system and other antihypertensive drugs on renal outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet366 :2026– 2033,2005
  64. Strippoli GF, Craig MC, Schena FP, Craig JC: Role of blood pressure targets and specific antihypertensive agents used to prevent diabetic nephropathy and delay its progression. J Am Soc Nephrol17 :S153– S155,2006
  65. Subramanian S, Venkataraman R, Kellum JA: Influence of dialysis membranes on outcomes in acute renal failure: a meta-analysis. Kidney Int62 :1819– 1823,2002
  66. Jaber BL, Lau J, Schmid CH, Karsou SA, Levey AS, Pereira BJ: Effect of biocompatibility of hemodialysis membranes on mortality in acute renal failure: A meta-analysis. Clin Nephrol57 :274– 282,2002
  67. Teehan GS, Liangos O, Lau J, Levey AS, Pereira BJ, Jaber BL: Dialysis membrane and modality in acute renal failure: Understanding discordant meta-analyses. Semin Dial16 :356– 360,2003
  68. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ309 :1286– 1291,1994
  69. US National Library of Medicine: MEDLINE Fact Sheet. Available at:http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/medline.html. Accessed March 3,2007
  70. Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, Dorgan M, Ramos-Remus C: Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials21 :476– 487,2000
  71. Topfer LA, Parada A, Menon D, Noorani H, Perras C, Serra-Prat M: Comparison of literature searches on quality and costs for health technology assessment using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care15 :297– 303,1999
  72. Minozzi S, Pistotti V, Forni M: Searching for rehabilitation articles on MEDLINE and EMBASE: An example with cross-over design. Arch Phys Med Rehabil81 :720– 722,2000
  73. EMBASE DataStar Datasheets. Available at:http://ds.datastarweb.com/ds/products/datastar/sheets/emed.htm. Accessed March 3,2007
  74. Cheema BS, Singh MA: Exercise training in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis: A systematic review of clinical trials. Am J Nephrol25 :352– 364,2005
  75. Clarke KS, Klarenbach S, Vlaicu S, Yang RC, Garg AX: The direct and indirect economic costs incurred by living kidney donors-a systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant21 :1952– 1960,2006
  76. Steinbrook R: Searching for the right search: Reaching the medical literature. N Engl J Med354 :4– 7,2006
  77. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB: Robustness of empirical search strategies for clinical content in MEDLINE. Proc AMIA Symp904– 908,2002
  78. Wilczynski NL, Walker CJ, McKibbon KA, Haynes RB: Reasons for the loss of sensitivity and specificity of methodologic MeSH terms and textwords in MEDLINE. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care436– 440,1995
  79. Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I, Wentz R: Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: Accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med21 :1635– 1640,2002
  80. Davidson RA: Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med1 :155– 158,1986
  81. Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Simms RW, Fortin PR, Felson DT, Minaker KL, Chalmers TC: A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med154 :157– 163,1994
  82. Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, Burzotta F, Valgimigli M, Romagnoli E, Crea F, Agostoni P: Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: Case study. BMJ332 :202– 209,2006
  83. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ315 :629– 634,1997
  84. Berlin JA: Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Lancet350:185– 186,1997
  85. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ: Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials17 :1– 12,1996
  86. Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JP, Wang C, Lau J: Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA287 :2973– 2982,2002
  87. Balk EM, Lau J, Bonis PA: Reading and critically appraising systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A short primer with a focus on hepatology. J Hepatol43:729– 736,2005
  88. Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Tugwell P, Moher M, Jones A, Pham B, Klassen TP: Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: Implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess3 :i– 98,1999
  89. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Boers M, van den Brandt PA: The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol54 :651– 654,2001
  90. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M: Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ323 :42– 46,2001
  91. Devereaux PJ, Choi PT, El Dika S, Bhandari M, Montori VM, Schunemann HJ, Garg AX, Busse JW, Heels-Ansdell D, Ghali WA, Manns BJ, Guyatt GH: An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. J Clin Epidemiol57 :1232– 1236,2004
  92. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S: Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials16 :62– 73,1995
  93. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG: Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA273 :408– 412,1995
  94. Laupacis A, Wells G, Richardson WS, Tugwell P: Users’ guides to the medical literature. V. How to use an article about prognosis. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA272 :234– 237,1994
  95. Garg AX, Suri RS, Barrowman N, Rehman F, Matsell D, Rosas-Arellano MP, Salvadori M, Haynes RB, Clark WF: Long-term renal prognosis of diarrhea-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. JAMA290 :1360– 1370,2003
  96. Deeks JJ: Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med21 :1575– 1600,2002
  97. DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials7 :177– 188,1986
  98. Hardy RJ, Thompson SG: Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med17 :841– 856,1998
  99. Higgins JP, Thompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.Stat Med21 :1539– 1558,2002
  100. Thompson SG, Higgins JP: How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med21 :1559– 1573,2002

Articles citing this article


No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: