Academia and Clinic1 March 1997
    Author, Article and Disclosure Information

    Systematic reviews can help practitioners keep abreast of the medical literature by summarizing large bodies of evidence and helping to explain differences among studies on the same question.A systematic review involves the application of scientific strategies, in ways that limit bias, to the assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies that address a specific clinical question. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several primary studies. Because the review process itself (like any other type of research) is subject to bias, a useful review requires clear reporting of information obtained using rigorous methods. Used increasingly to inform medical decision making, plan future research agendas, and establish clinical policy, systematic reviews may strengthen the link between best research evidence and optimal health care.

    References

    • 1. Teo KK, Yusuf S, Furberg CD. Effects of prophylactic antiarrhythmic drug therapy in acute myocardial infarction. An overview of results from randomized, controlled trials. JAMA. 1993; 270:1589-95. Google Scholar
    • 2. Pagliaro L, D'Amico G, Sorensen TI, Lebrec D, Burroughs AK, Morabito A, et al. Prevention of first bleeding in cirrhosis. A meta-analysis of randomized trials of nonsurgical treatment. Ann Intern Med. 1992; 117:59-70. Google Scholar
    • 3. Landefeld CS, Beyth RJ. Anticoagulant-related bleeding: clinical epidemiology, prediction, and prevention. Am J Med. 1993; 95:315-28. Google Scholar
    • 4. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995; 273:149-54. Google Scholar
    • 5. Gardner AW, Poehlman ET. Exercise rehabilitation programs for the treatment of claudication pain. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995; 274:975-80. Google Scholar
    • 6. Sackett DL, Haynes RB. On the need for evidence-based medicine. Evidence-Based Medicine. 1995; 1:5-6. Google Scholar
    • 7. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1992; 268:2420-5. Google Scholar
    • 8. Shin JH, Haynes RB, Johnston ME. The effect of problem-based, self-directed undergraduate education on life-long learning. Can Med Assoc J. 1993; 148:969-76. Google Scholar
    • 9. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106:485-88. Google Scholar
    • 10. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995; 48:167-71. Google Scholar
    • 11. Woolf SH. Practice guidelines: a new reality in medicine. I. Recent developments. Arch Intern Med. 1990; 150:1811-8. Google Scholar
    • 12. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions [Editorial]. ACP J Club. 1995; 123:A12. Google Scholar
    • 13. Bangert-Drowns RL. Misunderstanding meta-analysis. Evaluation and the Health Professional. 1995; 18:304-14. Google Scholar
    • 14. Ravnskov U. Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: frequency of citation and outcome. BMJ. 1992; 305:15-9. Google Scholar
    • 15. Neihouse PF, Priske SC. Quotation accuracy in review articles. DICP. 1989; 23:594-6. Google Scholar
    • 16. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992; 268:240-8. Google Scholar
    • 17. Cooper HM, Rosenthal R. Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychol Bull. 1980; 87:442-9. Google Scholar
    • 18. Williamson JW, German PS, Weiss R, Skinner EA, Bowes F 3d. Health science information management and continuing education of physicians. A survey of U.S. primary care practitioners and their opinion leaders. Ann Intern Med. 1989; 110:151-60. Google Scholar
    • 19. Davidoff F. Evidence-based medicine: why all the fuss? [Editorial] Ann Intern Med. 1995; 122:727. Google Scholar
    • 20. Pedrini MT, Levey AS, Lau J, Chalmers TC, Wang PH. The effect of dietary protein restriction on the progression of diabetic and nondiabetic renal diseases: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1996; 124:627-32. Google Scholar
    • 21. Collaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy-I: Prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration. BMJ. 1994; 308:81-106. Google Scholar
    • 22. Milne R, Hicks N. Evidence-based purchasing. Evidence-Based Medicine. 1996; 1:101-2. Google Scholar
    • 23. Tanenbaum SJ. What physicians know. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329:1268-71. Google Scholar
    • 24. McDonald CJ. Medical heuristics: the silent adjudicators of clinical practice. Ann Intern Med. 1996; 124(1 Pt 1):56-62. Google Scholar
    • 25. Naylor CD. Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits to evidence-based medicine. Lancet. 1995; 345:840-2. Google Scholar
    • 26. Dowie J. “Evidence-based”, “cost-effective” and “preference-driven” medicine: decision analysis-based medical decision making is the pre-requisite. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 1996; 1:104-13. Google Scholar
    • 27. Chalmers TC, Lau J. Meta-analytic stimulus for changes in clinical trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 1993; 2:161-72. Google Scholar
    • 28. Chalmers I, Haynes RB. Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. In: Chalmers I, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews. London: BMJ; 1995:86-95. Google Scholar
    • 29. Jadad A, Cook DJ, Browman G. When arbitrators disagree: resolving discordant meta-analysis. Can Med Assoc J. 1997; [In press]. Google Scholar
    • 30. Allender PS, Cutler JA, Follmann D, Cappuccio FP, Pryer J, Elliott P. Dietary calcium and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 1996; 124:825-31. Google Scholar
    • 31. Bucher HC, Cook RJ, Guyatt GH, Lang JD, Cook DJ, Hatala R, Hunt DL. Effects of dietary calcium supplementation on blood pressure. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. JAMA. 1996; 275:1016-22. Google Scholar
    • 32. Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Vandenbroucke JP. Effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on respiratory tract infections and mortality in the intensive care unit. Lancet. 1991; 338:859-62. Google Scholar
    • 33. Hurley JC. Prophylaxis with enteral antibiotics in ventilated patients: selective decontamination or selective cross-infection? Antimicrobial Agents Chemother. 1995; 39:941-7. Google Scholar
    • 34. Meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract Trialists' Collaborative Group. Br Med J. 1993; 307:525-32. Google Scholar
    • 35. Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Griffith L, Lee HN, Guyatt GH. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract. An overview. Chest. 1994; 105:1221-9. Google Scholar
    • 36. Kollef MH. The role of selective digestive tract decontamination on mortality and respiratory infections. A meta-analysis. Chest. 1994; 105:1101-8. Google Scholar
    • 37. Cook DJ, Reeve BK, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Heyland DK, Buckingham L, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Resolving discordant meta-analyses. JAMA. 1996; 275:308-14. Google Scholar
    • 38. L'Abbe KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med. 1987; 107:224-33. Google Scholar
    • 39. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994; 272:1367-71. Google Scholar
    • 40. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair J, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1995; 274:1800-4. Google Scholar
    • 41. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Goldberg RJ. Clinical recommendations using levels of evidence for antithrombotic agents. Chest. 1995; 108(4 Suppl):227S-30S. Google Scholar
    • 42. Chalmers I. The Cochrane Collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993; 703:153-63. Google Scholar
    • 43. Bero L, Rennie D. The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA. 1995; 274:1935-8. Google Scholar
    • 44. Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Library. Electronic serial publication issued quarterly by BMJ Publishing Group, London. Google Scholar