How to interpret a meta-analysis and judge its value as a guide for clinical practice

Reference

• Antman E M, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers T C. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. Jama 1992; 268(2)240–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgaertner M R, Higgins T F. Femoral neck fractures. Rockwood and Green's fractures in adults, R W Buchholz, J D Heckman. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia 2001; 1579–634
   Google Scholar
• Begg C B, Berlin J A. Publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81(2)107–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begg C B, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50(4)1088–101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni A V, Tornetta P, 3rd. Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2001; 83(1)15–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhandari M, Richards R R, Sprague S, Schemitsch E H. The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2002a; 84(3)388–96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhandari M, Devereaux P J, Guyatt G H, Cook D J, Swiontkowski M F, Sprague S, Schemitsch E H. An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent fulltext publications. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2002b; 84(4)615–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhandari M, Devereaux P J, Swiontkowski M F, Tornetta P, 3rd, Obremskey W, Koval K J, Nork S, Sprague S, Schemitsch E H, Guyatt G H. Internal fixation compared with arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2003; 85(9)1673–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhandari M, Devereaux P J, Montori V, Cina C, Tandan V, Guyatt G H. Users' guide to the surgical literature: how to use a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Can J Surg 2004a; 47(1)60–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhandari M, Montori V M, Devereaux P J, Wilczynski N L, Morgan D, Haynes R B. Doubling the impact: publication of systematic review articles in orthopaedic journals. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2004b; 86(5)1012–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ 1988, Edited
   Google Scholar
• Cook D J, Guyatt G H, Ryan G, Clifton J, Buckingham L, Willan A, McIlroy W, Oxman A D. Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. Jama 1993; 269(21)2749–53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper H M, Rosenthal R. Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychol Bull 1980; 87(3)442–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deeks M J, Altman D, Bradburn M J. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-anlysis in context, M Egger, G D Smith, D G Altman. BMJ Publishing Group, London 2001; 286: 286
   Google Scholar
• DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7(3)177–88
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Detsky A S, Naylor C D, O'Rourke K, McGeer A J, L'Abbe K A. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45(3)255–65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. Jama 1990; 263(10)1385–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers T C, Sacks H S, Smith H, Jr. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1987; 8(4)343–53
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dickersin K, Min Y I. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials 1993, Doc No 50
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Easterbrook P J, Berlin J A, Gopalan R, Matthews D R. Publication bias in clinical research. 1991; 337(8746)867–72
   Google Scholar
• Egger M, Smith G D. Bias in location and selection of studies. Bmj 1998; 316(7124)61–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj 1997a; 315(7109)629–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997b; 350(9074)326–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger M, Davey-Smith G. Principles of and procedures for systematic reviews. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-anlysis in context, M Egger, G D Smith, D G Altman. BMJ Publishing Group, London 2001; 26: 26
   Google Scholar
• Fergusson D, Glass K C, Waring D, Shapiro S. Turning a blind eye: the success of blinding reported in a random sample of randomised, placebo controlled trials. Bmj 2004; 328(7437)432
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias?. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48(1)159–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins J P, Thompson S G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21(11)1539–58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins J P, Thompson S G, Deeks J J, Altman D G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj 2003; 327(7414)557–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Jama 1999; 282(11)1054–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juni P, Altman D G, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. Bmj 2001; 323(7303)42–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan K S, Daya S, Jadad A. The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156(6)661–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lau J, Ioannidis J P, Schmid C H. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet 1998; 351(9096)123–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li P, Mah D, Lim K, Sprague S, Bhandari M. Randomization and concealment in surgical trials: a comparison between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic randomized trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005; 125(1)70–2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 2000; 356(9237)1228–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Jadad A R, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995; 16(1)62–73
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook D J, Jadad A R, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen T P. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 1998; 352(9128)609–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Cook D J, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D F. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999a; 354(9193)1896–900
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Cook D J, Jadad A R, Tugwell P, Moher M, Jones A, Pham B, Klassen T P. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess 1999b; 3(12)1–98, iiv
   Google Scholar
• Oxman A D, Guyatt G H. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44(11)1271–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patsopoulos N A, Analatos A A, Ioannidis J P. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Jama 2005; 293(19)2362–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poolman R W, Struijs P A, Krips R, Sierevelt I N, Marti R K, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Reporting of outcomes in orthopaedic randomized trials: does blinding of outcome assessors matter?. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2007; 89(3)550–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz K F. Subverting randomization in controlled trials. Jama 1995; 274(18)1456–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz K F. Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomized controlled trials: why bother?. ACP J Club 2000; 132(2)A11–2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schulz K F, Chalmers I, Hayes R J, Altman D G. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Jama 1995; 273(5)408–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern J M, Simes R J. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. Bmj 1997; 315(7109)640–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson S G, Pocock S J. Can meta-analyses be trusted?. Lancet 1991; 338(8775)1127–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright J G, Swiontkowski M F, Heckman J D. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2003; 85(1)1–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar