Conducting and critically appraising a high-quality systematic review and Meta-analysis pertaining to COVID-19

References

• Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA. 2005;294(2):218–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli D, Ioannidis JP. US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110(37):15031–15036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeiffer T, Bertram L, Ioannidis JP. Quantifying selective reporting and the Proteus phenomenon for multiple datasets with similar bias. PLoS One. 2011;6(3):e18362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JP, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA, et al. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet. 2001;29(3):306–309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh S. How to conduct and interpret systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2017;8(5):e93.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crocetti E. Systematic reviews with meta-analysis: why, when, and how? Emerging Adulthood. 2016;4(1):3–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Green S (Eds.). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Avilable from www. cochrane-handbook.org
   Google Scholar
• Hunt M. How science takes stock: the story of Meta-analysis. New York (NY): Russell Sage Foundation; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Kellum JA, Rieker JP, Power M, et al. Teaching critical appraisal during critical care fellowship training: a foundation for evidence-based critical care medicine. Crit Care Med. 2000;28:3067–3070.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF. 2013. Writing a literature review. In: Prinstein MJ, Patterson MD, editor.The portable mentor: expert guide to a successful career in psychology, 2nd ed. New York: Springer. pp. 119–132.
   Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF, Leary MR. Writing narrative literature reviews. Rev Gen Psychol. 1997;1(3):311–320.
   Google Scholar
• Bem DJ. Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychol Bull. 1995;118(2):172–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper HM. Editorial. Psychol Bull. 2003;129:3–9.
   Google Scholar
• Uman LS. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;20(1):57–59.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garg AX, Hackam D, Tonelli M. Systematic review and meta-analysis: when one study is just not enough. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3(1):253–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bushman BJ, Wells GL. Narrative impressions of literature: the availability bias and the corrective properties of meta-analytic approaches. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2001;27(9):1123–1130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bushman BJ. Vote-counting procedures. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editor. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Found; 1994. pp. 193–214.
   Google Scholar
• Hedges LV, Olkin I. Vote count methods in research synthesis. Psychol Bull. 1980;88(2):359–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline RB. Beyond significance testing: statistics reform in the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Cumming G. Understanding the new statistics: effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta–analysis. New York (NY): Routledge; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Ahn E, Kang H. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018;71(2):103–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shokraneh F. Keeping up with studies on covid-19: systematic search strategies and resources. BMJ. 2020;369:m1601.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019;70:747–770.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothstein HR, Hopewell S. Grey literature. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine J, editors. The handbook of research synthesis (2nd ed.). New York (NY): Russell Sage; 2009. pp. 103–125.
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M (Eds.). Publication bias in Meta-analysis. Chichester (England): John Wiley; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Cumming G. The new statistics: Why and how. Psychol Sci. 2014;25(1):7–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipsey M, Wilson D. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Joober R, Schmitz N, Annable L, et al. Publication bias: what are the challenges and can they be overcome? J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2012;37(3):149–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper H. Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Valentine JC. Judging the quality of primary research. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, & Valentine J, editors. The handbook of research synthesis (2nd ed., pp. 129–146). New York (NY): Russell Sage; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Dijkers M. Introducing GRADE: a systematic approach to rating evidence in systematic reviews and to guideline development. Knowl Translat Update. 2013;1:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Schünemann H, Brozek J, Guyatt G, et al. Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach; 2013. Updated October 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA. Chapter 8: assessing the risk of bias in included studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011; Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA. Chapter 9: assessing the risk of bias in included studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. updated 2017 Jun; [cited 2017 Dec 13]. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis PD. The essential guide to effect sizes: statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in Meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West SL, Gartlehner G, Mansfield AJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness review methods: clinical heterogeneity: methods research paper. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010. Publication No. 10-EHC070-EF.
   Google Scholar
• Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, et al. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester (England): John Wiley; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–1101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Psychological Association. Publication manual of the American psychological association (6th ed.). Washington DC: Author; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–2012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, et al. Systematic review automation technologies. Syst Rev. 2014;3:74.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Michelson JD, Pariseau JS, Paganelli WC. Assessing surgical site infection risk factors using electronic medical records and text mining. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(3):333–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, et al. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Syst Rev. 2015;4:5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall IJ, Kuiper J, Wallace BC. RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):193–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olofsson H, Brolund A, Hellberg C, et al. Can abstract screening workload be reduced using text mining? User experiences of the tool Rayyan. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(3):275–280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beller E, Clark J, Tsafnat G, et al. Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: principles of the international collaboration for the automation of systematic reviews (ICASR). Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):77.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar