23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To inform evidence-based practice in health care, guidelines and policies require accurate identification, collation, and integration of all available evidence in a comprehensive, meaningful, and time-efficient manner. Approaches to evidence synthesis such as carefully conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential tools to summarize specific topics. Unfortunately, not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, and their quality can vary substantially. Since well-conducted evidence synthesis typically involves a complex set of steps, we believe formulating a cohesive, step-by-step guide on how to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis is essential. While most of the guidelines on systematic reviews focus on how to report or appraise systematic reviews, they lack guidance on how to synthesize evidence efficiently. To facilitate the design and development of evidence syntheses, we provide a clear and concise, 24-step guide on how to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and clinical trials. We describe each step, illustrate it with concrete examples, and provide relevant references for further guidance. The 24-step guide (1) simplifies the methodology of conducting a systematic review, (2) provides healthcare professionals and researchers with methodologically sound tools for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and (3) it can enhance the quality of existing evidence synthesis efforts. This guide will help its readers to better understand the complexity of the process, appraise the quality of published systematic reviews, and better comprehend (and use) evidence from medical literature.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

              Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur. J. Epidemiol.
                European journal of epidemiology
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                1573-7284
                0393-2990
                Jan 2020
                : 35
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012, Bern, Switzerland. taulant.muka@ispm.unibe.ch.
                [2 ] Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
                [3 ] Swiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland.
                [4 ] Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Institute of Public Health of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia.
                [5 ] Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
                [6 ] Medical Library, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
                [7 ] Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
                Article
                10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5
                10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5
                31720912
                d50cc846-93a7-46c3-88c1-819a252b4fe9
                History

                Evidence synthesis,Systematic review,24 Steps,Meta-analysis,Guideline

                Comments

                Comment on this article