Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The contribution of systematic reviews to the practice of pediatric nephrology

  • Review
  • Published:
Pediatric Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The key to accurate decision-making is to use the best available evidence. Systematic reviews aim to identify and combine evidence using systematic methods to minimize bias to provide reliable data for patient care. While systematic reviews can address different clinical questions, the methodology is most developed for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. Such systematic reviews include all available trial evidence, enhance the precision of the estimates of treatment effects, and identify where evidence is lacking or where sufficient evidence is already available. However the term “systematic review“ does not guarantee that a review covers all the available data, that the validity of included studies has been appropriately assessed, or that data have been combined appropriately in meta-analyses. Biases in systematic review include those related to identifying data (publication bias, language bias, selective reporting of outcomes) and those due to the design and conduct of trials (selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias). Thus, readers should read a systematic review carefully before accepting its results and conclusions. This review examines the information that can be provided by systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials together with the biases that can potentially jeopardize the results and conclusions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Davies K (2009) Quantifying the information needs of doctors in the UK using clinical librarians. Health Info Libr J 26:289–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I (2010) Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 7:e1000326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schuster MA, McGlynn EA, Brook RH (1998) How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Q 76:517–563

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Webster AC, Playford EG, Higgins G, Chapman JR, Craig JC (2004) Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists for renal transplant recipients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Transplantation 77:166–176

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. US Renal Data System. USRDS 2009 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD., pp Chapter 7, Figure 7.34, Volume 2

  6. US Renal Data System. USRDS 2010 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD., pp Chapter 7, Figure 7.29, Volume 2

  7. US Renal Data System. USRDS 2011 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD., pp Chapter 7, Figure 7.28, Volume 2

  8. Campbell S, McDonald S, Webster AC, Excell L (2009) ANZDATA Registry Report Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry. Adelaide, South Australia, pp 8–1 to 8–25

  9. Clayton P, Excell L, Campbell S, Chadban S (2010) ANZDATA Registry Report. Adelaide, South Australia.: Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, pp 8–1 to 8–31.

  10. Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2009) Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374:86–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K (2009) Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Data Syst Rev Jan 21:MR000006

  12. Mohan S, Radhakrishnan J (2010) Do meta-analyses in nephrology change the way we treat patients? Kidney Int 78:1080–1087

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007) Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4:e78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Glass GV (1976) Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 5:3–8

    Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration

  16. Webster AC, Cross NB, Mitchell R, Craig JC (2010) How to get the most from the medical literature: searching the medical literature effectively. Nephrology 15:12–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Henderson LK, Craig JC, Willis NS, Tovey D, Webster AC (2010) How to write a Cochrane systematic review. Nephrology 15:617–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Webster AC, Ruster LP, McGee R, Matheson SL, Higgins GY, Willis NS, Chapman JR, Craig JC (2010) Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists for kidney transplant recipients. Cochrane Data Syst Rev Jan 20:CD003897

  19. Gane E, Saliba F, Valdecasas GJ, O'Grady J, Pescovitz MD, Lyman S, Robinson CA (1997) Randomised trial of efficacy and safety of oral ganciclovir in the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in liver-transplant recipients. The Oral Ganciclovir International Transplantation Study Group [corrected]. Lancet 350:1729–1733

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hodson EM, Craig JC, Strippoli GFM, Webster AC (2008) Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients. Cochrane Data Syst Rev Jan 2:CD003774

  21. Hodson EM, Willis NS, Craig JC (2008) Non-corticosteroid treatment for nephrotic syndrome in children. Cochrane Data Syst Rev Jan 23:CD002290

    Google Scholar 

  22. Juni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S, Sterchi R, Dieppe PA, Egger M (2004) Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Lancet 364:2021–2029

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Phrommintikul A, Haas SJ, Elsik M, Krum H (2007) Mortality and target haemoglobin concentrations in anaemic patients with chronic kidney disease treated with erythropoietin: a meta-analysis. Lancet 369:381–388

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pfeffer MA, Burdmann EA, Chen CY, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, Eckardt KU, Feyzi JM, Ivanovich P, Kewalramani R, Levey AS, Lewis EF, McGill JB, McMurray JJV, Parfrey P, Parving HH, Remuzzi G, Singh AK, Solomon SD, Toto R: for the TREAT Investigators (2009) A trial of darbepoetin alfa in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med 361:2019–2032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Palmer SC, Navaneethan SD, Craig JC, Johnson DW, Tonelli M, Garg AX, Pellegrini F, Ravani P, Jardine M, Perkovic V, Graziano G, McGee R, Nicolucci A, Tognoni G, Strippoli GFM (2010) Meta-analysis: erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with chronic kidney disease. Ann Intern Med 153:23–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hodson EM, Craig JC (2010) How to apply results from randomized trials and systematic reviews to individual patient care. Nephrology 15:277–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Flynn JT, Kaiser BA, Long SS, Schulman SL, Deforest A, Polinsky MS, Baluarte HJ (1997) Intravenous immunoglobulin prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus infection in pediatric renal transplant recipients. Am J Nephrol 17:146–152

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Camacho-Gonzalez AF, Gutman J, Hymes LC, Leong T, Hilinski JA (2011) 24 weeks of valganciclovir prophylaxis in children after renal transplantation: a 4-year experience. Transplantation 91:245–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 354:1896–1900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine 6:e1000097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Manns B, Laupland KB, Doig CJ (2005) A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care 9:R575–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Palmer SC, Navaneethan SD, Strippoli GFM (2010) How to read a nephrology systematic review. Nephrology 15:158–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E (2007) Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Data Syst Rev Apr 18:MR000005

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tetzlaff J, Moher D, Pham B, Altman DG (2006) Survey of views on including grey literature in systematic reviews. 14th Cochrane Colloquium, Dublin, Ireland

  35. Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, Egger M (2007) Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Data Syst Rev Apr 18:MR000010

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR (2011) Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Data Syst Rev Jan 19:MR000031

  37. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273:408–412

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP (1998) Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352:609–613

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Egger M, Dickersin K, Davey-Smith G (2001) Problems and limitations in conducting systematic reviews. In: Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman DG (eds) Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. BMJ Publishing Group, London

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Hodson EM, Barclay PG, Craig JC, Jones C, Kable K, Strippoli GFM, Vimalachandra D, Webster AC (2005) Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients. Cochrane Data Syst Rev Oct 19:CD003774

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, Sydney, Australia

    Elisabeth Hodson & Jonathan C. Craig

  2. Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Elisabeth Hodson & Jonathan C. Craig

  3. Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Locked Bag 4001, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia

    Elisabeth Hodson

Authors
  1. Elisabeth Hodson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan C. Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabeth Hodson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hodson, E., Craig, J.C. The contribution of systematic reviews to the practice of pediatric nephrology. Pediatr Nephrol 28, 197–206 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-012-2155-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-012-2155-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation