체계적 고찰/메타분석 연구 비판적으로 바라보기 = Critical Appraisal of Systematic Review/Meta-analysis

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In recent years, the number of systematic review and meta-analysis literatures has markedly increased. Systematic reviews can give important information about clinical decision making when studies show different or even contradictory results. By utilizing systematic reviews, clinicians can get unbiased summaries of the estimates, which are a reliable source of clinical information. Contrary to the narrative review, the systematic review conducts a comprehensive research of relevant studies on a defined clinical question, and critically appraises the risk of bias in included studies. The systematic review usually includes meta-analysis which summarizes the quantitative estimates by using statistical methods. Most meta-analyses aggregate data from primary studies, but individual data are also commonly used. Explaining heterogeneity among included studies and subsequent subgroup analysis are often required. Systematic review and meta-analysis depend on the quality of included studies, and subsequently cannot overcome the limitations of primary studies. Also, meta-analysis is prone to publication biases and methodological flaws. Despite these limitations, systematic review has definitive strengths. Maximizing these strengths require reliable second-hand data and a comprehensive analysis

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Oxman AD, "The science of reviewing research" 703 : 125-133, 1993

2 McAlister FA, "The medical review article revisited: 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 Montori VM, "Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts" 1 : 2-, 2003

5 Pillemer DB, "Synthesizing outcomes: how to use research evidence from many studies" 50 : 176-195, 1980

6 U.S. National Library of Medicine, "Secondary U.S. National Library of Medicine" U.S. National Library of Medicine

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

8 Stern JM, "Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects" 315 : 640-645, 1997

9 Moher D, "Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses:the PRISMA statement" 339 : b2535-, 2009

10 Roundtree AK, "Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: a systematic review" 62 : 128-137, 2009

11 Bae HS, "Obesity and epithelial ovarian cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis" 7 : 41-, 2014

12 Cook DJ, "Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis" 48 : 167-171, 1995

13 Teagarden JR, "Meta-analysis: whither narrative review?" 9 : 274-281, 1989

14 Wolf FM, "Meta-analysis: quantitative methods for research synthesis" SAGE Publications 1986

15 Egger M, "Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German" 350 : 326-329, 1997

16 Edwards P, "Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records" 21 : 1635-1640, 2002

17 Marson AG, "How easy are randomized controlled trials in epilepsy to find on Medline? The sensitivity and precision of two Medline searches" 37 : 377-380, 1996

18 Hopewell S, "Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials" (2) : MR000001-, 2007

19 Hopewell S, "Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions" (2) : MR000010-, 2007

20 Huque MF, "Experiences with meta-analysis in NDA submissions" 28-33, 1988

21 Melander H, "Evidence b(i)ased medicine--selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications" 326 : 1171-1173, 2003

22 Panic N, "Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and metaanalyses" 8 : e83138-, 2013

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

24 Sleight P, "Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them!" 1 : 25-27, 2000

25 Higgins JPT, "Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0" The Cochrane Collaboration

26 Wang HR, "Can atypical antipsychotic augmentation reduce subsequent treatment failure more effectively among depressed patients with a higher degree of treatment resistance? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials" 2015

27 Egger M, "Bias in location and selection of studies" 316 : 61-66, 1998

28 Adams CE, "An investigation of the adequacy of MEDLINE searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effects of mental health care" 24 : 741-748, 1994