Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16277721/ below:

A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature

Review

Affiliations

• ¹ Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. adelaney@med.usyd.edu.au

• PMID: 16277721
• PMCID: PMC1297628
• DOI: 10.1186/cc3803

Item in Clipboard

Review

Anthony Delaney et al. Crit Care. 2005.

• ¹ Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. adelaney@med.usyd.edu.au

• PMID: 16277721
• PMCID: PMC1297628
• DOI: 10.1186/cc3803

Item in Clipboard

Introduction: Meta-analyses have been suggested to be the highest form of evidence available to clinicians to guide clinical practice in critical care. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of meta-analyses that address topics pertinent to critical care.

Methods: To identify potentially eligible meta-analyses for inclusion, a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was undertaken, using broad search terms relevant to intensive care, including: intensive care, critical care, shock, resuscitation, inotropes and mechanical ventilation. Predetermined inclusion criteria were applied to each identified meta-analysis independently by two authors. To assess report quality, the included meta-analyses were assessed using the component and overall scores from the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ). The quality of reports published before and after the publication of the QUOROM statement was compared.

Results: A total of 139 reports of meta-analyses were included (kappa = 0.93). The overall quality of reports of meta-analyses was found to be poor, with an estimated mean overall OQAQ score of 3.3 (95% CI; 3.0-3.6). Only 43 (30.9%) were scored as having minimal or minor flaws (>5). We noted problems with the reporting of key characteristics of meta-analyses, such as performing a thorough literature search, avoidance of bias in the inclusion of studies and appropriately referring to the validity of the included studies. After the release of the QUOROM statement, however, an improvement in the overall quality of published meta-analyses was noted.

Conclusion: The overall quality of the reports of meta-analyses available to critical care physicians is poor. Physicians should critically evaluate these studies prior to considering applying the results of these studies in their clinical practice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Flow chart showing results of…

Flow chart showing results of search and reasons for exclusion of reports. ICU,…

Flow chart showing results of search and reasons for exclusion of reports. ICU, intensive care unit.

Frequency histogram showing the number…

Frequency histogram showing the number of reports of meta-analyses addressing critical care issues…

Frequency histogram showing the number of reports of meta-analyses addressing critical care issues per year, 1994 to 2003.

• The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal.

  Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Laupland K, Manns B, Doig C. Delaney A, et al. Crit Care Med. 2007 Feb;35(2):589-94. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000253394.15628.FD. Crit Care Med. 2007. PMID: 17205029

• A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in endodontics.

  Suebnukarn S, Ngamboonsirisingh S, Rattanabanlang A. Suebnukarn S, et al. J Endod. 2010 Apr;36(4):602-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.019. Epub 2010 Feb 21. J Endod. 2010. PMID: 20307731 Review.

• Assessing the reporting and scientific quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of treatments for anxiety disorders.

  Bereza BG, Machado M, Einarson TR. Bereza BG, et al. Ann Pharmacother. 2008 Oct;42(10):1402-9. doi: 10.1345/aph.1L204. Epub 2008 Sep 2. Ann Pharmacother. 2008. PMID: 18728102

• Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. QUOROM Group.

  Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Moher D, et al. Br J Surg. 2000 Nov;87(11):1448-54. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01610.x. Br J Surg. 2000. PMID: 11091231 Review.

• Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement.

  Petrou S, Rivero-Arias O, Dakin H, Longworth L, Oppe M, Froud R, Gray A. Petrou S, et al. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Oct;33(10):985-91. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0319-2. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015. PMID: 26232201 Free PMC article.

• Reporting and methodologic quality of Cochrane Neonatal review group systematic reviews.

  Al Faleh K, Al-Omran M. Al Faleh K, et al. BMC Pediatr. 2009 Jun 17;9:38. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-9-38. BMC Pediatr. 2009. PMID: 19534780 Free PMC article.

• A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses.

  Ipser JC, Stein DJ. Ipser JC, et al. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2009 Aug;11(4):302-9. doi: 10.1007/s11920-009-0044-7. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2009. PMID: 19635239 Review.

• Surgical versus percutaneous tracheostomy: an evidence-based approach.

  Pappas S, Maragoudakis P, Vlastarakos P, Assimakopoulos D, Mandrali T, Kandiloros D, Nikolopoulos TP. Pappas S, et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011 Mar;268(3):323-30. doi: 10.1007/s00405-010-1398-5. Epub 2010 Oct 19. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011. PMID: 20957486 Review.

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

  Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Moher D, et al. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. Epub 2009 Jul 21. PLoS Med. 2009. PMID: 19621072 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

1. 1. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485–488. - PubMed
2. 1. 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;268:240–248. doi: 10.1001/jama.268.2.240. - DOI - PubMed
3. 1. Cook DJ, Meade MO, Fink MP. How to keep up with the critical care literature and avoid being buried alive. Crit Care Med. 1996;24:1757–1768. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199610000-00026. - DOI - PubMed
4. 1. Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ, Cook DJ, Green L, Naylor CD, Wilson MC, Richardson WS. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the Users' Guides to patient care. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000;284:1290–1296. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.10.1290. - DOI - PubMed
5. 1. McIntyre LA, Fergusson DA, Hebert PC, Moher D, Hutchison JS. Prolonged therapeutic hypothermia after traumatic brain injury in adults: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289:2992–2999. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.22.2992. - DOI - PubMed

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3