Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
← Back to Search

A Brief Overview Of Systematic Reviews And Meta-analyses

K. Sriganesh, H. Shanthanna, J. Busse
Published 2016 · Medicine

Save to my Library
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy Visualize in Litmaps
Reduce the time it takes to create your bibliography by a factor of 10 by using the world’s favourite reference manager
Time to take this seriously.
Get Citationsy
Systematic reviews (SRs) are performed to acquire all evidence to address a specific clinical question and involve a reproducible and thorough search of the literature and critical appraisal of eligible studies. When combined with a meta-analysis (quantitatively pooling of results of individual studies), a rigorously conducted SR provides the best available evidence for informing clinical practice. In this article, we provide a brief overview of SRs and meta-analyses for anaesthesiologists.
This paper references
Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM
S. Satya‐Murti (1997)
Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.
D. Stroup (2000)
Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2 nd ed
Dl Sackett (2000)
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
J. Higgins (2003)
Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.
A. Viera (2005)
Users' guides to the medical literature : essentials of evidence-based clinical practice
G. Guyatt (2008)
Evidence based medicine and the medical curriculum
P. Glasziou (2008)
The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
A. Liberati (2009)
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.
M. Grant (2009)
Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Available from: tre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march
B Phillips (2009)
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Michele Tarsilla (2010)
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
D. Moher (2010)
An international registry of systematic-review protocols
A. Booth (2011)
The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
J. Higgins (2011)
What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians.
J. Riva (2012)
Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence (January 2001)
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses
G. Wells (2014)
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Caudal Block as Compared to Noncaudal Regional Techniques for Inguinal Surgeries in Children
H. Shanthanna (2014)
An efficient strategy allowed English-speaking reviewers to identify foreign-language articles eligible for a systematic review.
J. Busse (2014)
Optimal Strategies for Reporting Pain in Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews: Recommendations from an OMERACT 12 Workshop
J. Busse (2015)
Local anesthetic injections with or without steroid for chronic non-cancer pain: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
H. Shanthanna (2016)
Consumers and Communication Review Group: Data Synthesis and Analysis. Available from
R Ryan (2016)
Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group: Data Synthesis and Analysis. Available from: http:// uploads/AnalysisRestyled
R Ryan (2016)
Available from:

This paper is referenced by
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar