World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 582–587

Role of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis in Evidence-based Medicine

Article

Abstract

The overwhelming increase in the quantity of clinical evidence has led to detachment of the evidence and practice because new evidence can be integrated into clinical practice only after it has been critically appraised and synthesized on the basis of the existing evidence. Because many clinicians lack the skills and the time for such information processing, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, their quantitative counterparts, play an important role in health care. Well performed systematic reviews provide clinically relevant information for surgeons, abrogating the need to identify, read, and evaluate many individual studies. This article reviews the basic principles of meta-analysis, discusses its potential weaknesses such as heterogeneity and publication bias, and highlights special situations when dealing with surgical trials.

References

  1. 1.
    Sackett, DL, Rosenberg, WM. 1995The need for evidence-based medicineJ. R. Soc. Med.88620624PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Millat, B, Fingerhut, A, Flamant, Y,  et al. 1999Survey of the impact of randomised clinical trials on surgical practice in FranceEur. J. Surg.1658794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sauerland, S, Bouillon, B, Neugebauer, E. 2003Praktische Anwendung der EBM in der Chirurgie: Evidenz und ErfahrungZ. Arztl. Fortbild. Qualitatssich.97271276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Uhl, W, Wente, MN, Büchler, MW. 2000Chirurgisch-klinische Studien in der praktischen DurchführungChirurg71615625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barnes, DE, Bero, LA. 1998Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusionsJ.A.M.A.27915661570PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antman, EM, Lau, J, Kupelnick, B,  et al. 1992A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts: treatments for myocardial infarctionJ.A.M.A.268240248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    L’Abbe, KA, Detsky, AS, O’Rourke, K. 1987Meta-analysis in clinical researchAnn. Intern. Med.107224233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sauerland, S, Sauerland, T, Antes, G,  et al. 2002Meta-Analysen von Quarks, Baryonen und Mesonen: eine “Cochrane Collaboration” in der PhysikZ. Arztl. Fortbild. Qualitatssich.969598Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neugebauer, E, Lorenz, W. 1989Meta-analysis: from classical review to a new refined methodologyTheor. Surg.47985Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neugebauer, EAM, Lefering, R, McPeek, B et al. (1998) “Systematically reviewing previous work” In: Troidi, H, McKneally, MF, Mulder, DS (editors), Surgical Research: Basic Principles and Clinical Practice, 3rd ed., Springer, Berlin, pp 341-355Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Allen, IE, Olkin, I. 1999Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrievedJ.A.M.A.282634635PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McAuley, L, Pham, B, Tugwell, P,  et al. 2000Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?Lancet35612281231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Egger, M, Zellweger-Zahner, T, Schneider, M,  et al. 1997Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and GermanLancet350326329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moher, D, Cook, DJ, Eastwood, S,  et al. 1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statementLancet35418961900CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jüni, P, Altman, DG, Egger, M. 2001Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trialsB.M.J.3234246Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jüni, P, Witschi, A, Bloch, R,  et al. 1999The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysisJ.A.M.A.28210541060PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deeks, JJ. 2002Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomesStat. Med.2115751600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Higgins, JPT, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ,  et al. 2003Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesB.M.J.327557560Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thompson, SG. 1994Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigatedB.M.J.30913511355Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glasziou, PP, Sanders, SL. 2002Investigating causes of heterogeneity in systematic reviewsStat. Med.2115031511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moher, D, Pham, B, Jones, A,  et al. 1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?Lancet352609613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lau, J, Ioannidis, JP, Schmid, CH. 1998Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enoughLancet351123127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dickersin, K. 1990The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrenceJ.A.M.A.26313851389PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krzyzanowska, MK, Pintilie, M, Tannock, IF. 2003Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meetingJ.A.M.A.290495501PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Egger, M, Davey Smith, G, Schneider, M,  et al. 1997Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical testB.M.J.315629634Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    LeLorier, J, Grégoire, G, Benhaddad, A,  et al. 1997Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subseuqent large randomized, controlled trialsN. Engl. J. Med.337536542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Egger, M, Davey Smith, G, Altman, DG 2001Systematic reviews in health care BMJ PublishingLondonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khan, K, Kunz, R, Kleijnen, J,  et al.  2003Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicineRoyal Society of Medicine PressLondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stewart, LA, Parmar, MKB. 1993Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference?Lancet341418422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McCormack K, Scott NW, Go PM. et al. Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2003;CD001785Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Song, F, Altman, DG, Glenny, AM,  et al. 2003Validity of indirect comparisons for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analysesB.M.J.326472475Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lijmer, JG, Mol, BW, Heisterkamp, S,  et al. 1999Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic testsJ.A.M.A.28210611066PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sauerland, S, Neugebauer, E. 2000Consensus conferences must include a systematic search and categorization of the evidenceSurg. Endosc.14908910CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EAM. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2002;CD001546Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer E. Explaining heterogeneity in surgical trials by assessing learning-curves [abstract] In 2nd Symposium on Systematic Reviews. Oxford, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, 1999;65Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bero, L, Rennie, D. 1995The Cochrane Collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health careJ.A.M.A.27419351938PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jadad, AR, Cook, DJ, Jones, A,  et al. 1998Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journalsJ.A.M.A.280278280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Emond, SD, Wyer, PC, Brown, MD,  et al. 2002How relevant are the systematic reviews in the Cochrane library to emergency medical practice? Ann Emerg. Med.39153158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biochemical and Experimental Division, Medical FacultyUniversity of CologneKölnGermany
  2. 2.Clinical Study Center of the German Surgical society (SDGC), Department of SurgeryUniversity of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, D-69120HeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations