체계적 고찰 연구의 개요 = An introduction to systematic review

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Systematic review had become one of the important research area in medicine. Systematic review can be demonstrating benefit or harm of an intervention when results of individual studies are inconclusive. While narrative reviews can often include an element of selection bias, systematic reviews typically involve a comprehensive plan and search strategy with the goal of reducing bias by identifying, appraising, and synthesizing all relevant studies on a particular topic and investigation of heterogeneity among included studies. Systematic reviews typically include a meta-analysis component which involves using statistical techniques to synthesize the data from several studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Systematic review overcomes the limitation of small sample sizes by pooling results from a number of individual studies to generate a single best estimate. Although systematic reviews are published in academic forums, the Cochrane Collaboration is a widely recognized international and not-for-profit organization that promotes, supports, and disseminates systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy of interventions in the health care field. Systematic review has become a popular and powerful tool. If rigorously conducted, it is essential for evidence-based decision making in clinical practice as well as on the health policy level.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Mulrow CD, "The medical review article: state of the science" 106 : 485-488, 1987

2 McAlister FA, "The medical review article revisit-ed: has the science improved?" 131 : 947-951, 1999

3 Dickersin K, "The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence" 263 : 1385-1389, 1990

4 Liberati A, "The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care inter-ventions: explanation and elaboration" 6 : e1000100-, 2009

5 Bero L, "The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care" 274 : 1935-1938, 1995

6 Higgins JP, "The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials" 343 : d5928-, 2011

7 Egger M, "Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context" BMJ Books 2001

8 Glasziou P, "Systematic reviews in health care: a practical guide" Cambridge University Press 2001

9 Bravata DM, "Simple pooling versus combining in meta-analysis" 24 : 218-230, 2001

10 Turner EH, "Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influ-ence on apparent efficacy" 358 : 252-260, 2008

11 "Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics" 2 : 1243-1246, 1904

12 Sterne JA, "Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials" 343 : d4002-, 2011

13 Glass GV, "Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research" 5 : 3-8, 1976

14 Moher D, "Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement" 151 : 264-269, 2009

15 Petitti DB, "Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effec-tiveness analysis: methods for quantitative synthesis in medi-cine" Oxford University Press 1999

16 Stangl DK, "Meta-analysis in medicine and health policy" Marcel Dekker 2000

17 Cochrane AL, "Medicines for the year 2000" Office of Health Economics 1-11, 1979

18 Higgins JP, "Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses" 327 : 557-560, 2003

19 Sutton AJ, "Me-thods for meta-analysis in medical research" Wiley 2000

20 Yusuf S, "Intravenous magnesium in acute myocardial infarction. An effective, safe, simple, and inexpen-sive intervention" 87 : 2043-2046, 1993

21 "ISIS-4: a randomised factorial trial assessing early oral capto-pril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58,050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. ISIS-4 (Fourth International Study of Infarct Survival) Colla-borative Group" 345 : 669-685, 1995

22 Colditz GA, "Efficacy of BCG vaccine in the prevention of tuberculosis. Meta-analysis of the published literature" 271 : 698-702, 1994

23 Cochrane AL, "Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflec-tions on health services" Royal Society of Medicine Press 1999

24 Shea BJ, "Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews" 7 : 10-, 2007

25 Heejeng Son, "Assessing methodology quality of Korean sys-tematic review using AMSTAR" Korea university 2012

26 Grant MJ, "A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies" 26 : 91-108, 2009