Systematic review and meta-analysis: Main points
- Authors: Sigua B.V.1, Kotkov P.A.1, Kurkov A.A.1, Zemlyanoy V.P.1
-
Affiliations:
- North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov
- Issue: Vol 14, No 2 (2022)
- Pages: 13-22
- Section: Reviews
- Submitted: 24.05.2022
- Accepted: 01.06.2022
- Published: 08.09.2022
- URL: https://journals.eco-vector.com/vszgmu/article/view/108171
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/mechnikov108171
- ID: 108171
Cite item
Abstract
The growth of the scientific medical community publication activity has led to the emergence of large volumes of disparate, often contradictory information of varying degrees of methodological quality. In such circumstances, a single tool for processing the results of numerous clinical trials was only a matter of time, reflecting the needs of practitioners. Such a tool within the framework of the principles of evidence-based medicine was the conduct of systematic reviews, in some cases supplemented by meta-analyses. The Cochrane is now the leading scientific organization that sets the tone for all research of this kind, providing most of the research of this design every year. Without taking into account the possible negative consequences of such a monopoly, it should be noted that this organization offers a detailed algorithm for writing systematic reviews, which is in the public domain along with the necessary software. This highly transparent methodology makes writing systematic reviews a task within the reach of any professional, regardless of supervision by the Cochrane, whose guiding resource is limited. This work is based on the methodological recommendations of the Cochrane and focuses on the main stages of writing systematic reviews.
Full Text
About the authors
Badri V. Sigua
North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov
Email: dr.sigua@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4556-4913
SPIN-code: 5571-8893
MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor
Russian Federation, Saint PetersburgPavel A. Kotkov
North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov
Author for correspondence.
Email: kotkovdr@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9762-9854
SPIN-code: 3802-2076
MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, Saint PetersburgAleksey A. Kurkov
North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov
Email: dok.kurkov@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2128-8651
SPIN-code: 6396-4386
MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, Saint PetersburgVyacheslav P. Zemlyanoy
North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov
Email: decsurg@maps.spb.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7368-5926
MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor
Russian Federation, Saint PetersburgReferences
- Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane; 2022.
- Jahan N, Naveed S, Zeshan M, Tahir MA. How to conduct a systematic review: A narrative literature review. Cureus. 2016;8(11):e864. doi: 10.7759/cureus.864
- Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–29. doi: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e31802c9098
- Shah HM, Chung KC. Archie Cochrane and his vision for evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(3):982–988. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b03928
- Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: Understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care. 2013;2(1):9–14. doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.109934
- Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
- Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10):1435–1443. doi: 10.1177/1049732312452938
- Henderson LK, Craig JC, Willis NS, et al. How to write a Cochrane systematic review. Nephrology (Carlton). 2010;15(6):617–624. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1797.2010.01380.x
- Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619–625. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181de24bc
- Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(6):429–438. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-6-201209180-00537
- Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 2014;312(2):171–179. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.5559