Systematic reviews - theory and practice

References

• Harrison H. The principles for family-centered neonatal care. Pediatrics 1993; 92: 643–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olkin I. Invited commentary: Re: “A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods”. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 140: 290–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oxman A D, Guyatt G H, Singer J, Goldsmith C H, Hutchison B G, Milner R A, Streiner D L. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 91–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schultz K F, Chalmers I, Grimes D A, Altman D G. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA 1994; 272: 125–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer J, Sacks H S, Lucente F, Chalmers T C. Physician attitudes toward applications of computer data base systems. JAMA 1983; 249: 1610–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers I. A classified bibliography of controlled trials in perinatal medicine 1940–1984. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1986, 1986
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers I, Hetherington J, Newdick M, Mutch L, Grant A, Enkin M, Enkin E, Dickersin K. The Oxford database of perinatal trials: developing a register of published reports of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 306–324
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sinclair J, Bracken M. Effective care of the newborn. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1992
   Google Scholar
• Oxman A, Stachenko D. SJ. Meta-analysis in primary care: theory and practice. Assessing interventions. Traditional and innovative methods, F Tudiver, M J Bass, E V Dunn, P G Norton, M Stewart. Sage Publ, Newbury Park 1992, Research Methods for Primary Care Vol 4
   Google Scholar
• Mulrow C D. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Int. Med 1987; 106: 485–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glass G V. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 1976; 5: 3–8
   Google Scholar
• Petitti D B. Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford 1994
   Google Scholar
• L'Abbe K A, Detsky A S, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Int Med 1987; 107: 224–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks H S, Berier J, Reitmar D, Berk A, Chalmers T C. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 450–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins R, Gray R, Godwin J, Peto R. Avoidance of large biases and large random errors in the assessment of moderate treatment effects: the need for systematic reviews. Stat Med 1987; 6: 245–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohlsson A, Wang E. An analysis of antenatal tests to detect infection in preterm premature rupture of the membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 809–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers R P, Levin J. A critical reappraisal of bleeding time. Semin Thrombosis Hemostat 1990; 16: 1–144
   Google Scholar
• Kardaun J WPF, Kardaun O JWF. Comparative diagnostic performance of three radiological procedures for the detection of lumbar disk herniation. Meth Inform Med 1990; 29: 12–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed J F. Meta-analysis of the reliability of non-invasive carotid studies. Biomed Instrument Technol 1991; 25: 465–71
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kellen M, Aronson S, Roizen M F, Barnard J, Thisted R A. Predictive and diagnostic tests of renal failure: a review. Anesth Analg 1994; 78: 134–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwig L, Tosteson A NA, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers T C, Mosteller F. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Int Med 1994; 120: 667–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxman A D, Guyatt G H. The science of reviewing research. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1993; 703
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cook D J, Sackett D L, Spitzer W O, for the Postdam Consultation on Meta-analyses. Evolving methodological guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in health care. J Clin Epidemiol, In press
   Google Scholar
• Oxman A. Preparing and maintaining systematic reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration tool kit, A Oxman. The Canadian Cochrane Center, Hamilton, OntarioCanada 1994
   Google Scholar
• Gregoire G, Derderian F, LeLorier J. (1994) Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a tower of Babel bias?. Second International Cochrane Colloquium, Hamilton, OntarioCanada, October, 1–41994, abstract
   Google Scholar
• Berlin J A, Begg C B, Louis T A. An assessment of publication bias using a sample of published clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 1989; 84: 381–92
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers I. Under reporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 1990; 263: 1405–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers T C, Frank C S, Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA 1990; 263: 1392–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook D J, Guyatt G H, Ryan G, Clifton J, Buckingham L, Willan A, McLlory W, Oxman A D. Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses. JAMA 1993; 269: 2749–53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 1990; 263: 1385–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickersin K, Min Y-I, Meinert C L. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992; 267: 374–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hetherington J, Dickersin K, Chalmers I, Meinert C L. Retrospective and prospective identification of unpublished controlled trials: lessons from a survey of obstetricians and pediatricians. Pediatrics 1989; 84: 374–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Jadad A R, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clin Trials, in press
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers T C, Smith H, Jr, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, Ambroz A. A method for assessing quality of a randomized control trial. Controlled Clin Trials 1981; 2: 31–49
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Emerson J D, Burdick E, Hoaglin D C, Mosteller F, Chalmers T C. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 1990; 11: 339–52
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenland S. Invited commentary: A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 140: 290–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohlsson A, Myhr T L. Intrapartum chemoprophylaxis of perinatal group B streptococcal infections. A critical review of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170: 910–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers I, Hetherington J, Elbourne D, Keirse M JNC, Enkin M. Materials and methods used in synthesizing evidence to evaluate the effects of care during pregnancy and childbirth. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth, I Chalmers, M Enkin, M JNC Keirse. Oxford University Press. 1989; 39–65
   Google Scholar
• Bracken M B. Effective care of the newborn. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1992; 13–8
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair J S, Cook R J, Guyatt G H, Sackett D L, Cook D J, Hayward R S (1994) When should an effective treatment be recommended for use? Quantitative derivation of the threshold NNT. Second International Cochrane Colloquium, Hamilton, OntarioCanada, October, 1–41994
   Google Scholar
• Riegelman R, Schroth W S. Adjusting the number needed to treat: incorporating adjustments for the utility and timing of benefits and harms. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 247–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–88
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laird N M, Mosteller F. Some statistical methods for combining experimental results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1990; 6: 5–30
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schultz K F, Altman D G. Statistical methods for data synthesis. UK Cochrane Center, Oxford 1993, Cochrane Workshop Report
   Google Scholar
• Greenland S. Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature. Epidemiol Rev 1987; 9: 1–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berlin J A, Laird N M, Sacks H S, et al. A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials. Stat Med 1989; 6: 217–409
   Google Scholar
• Midgette A S, Stukel T A, Littenberg B. A meta-analytic method for summarizing diagnostic test performances: receiver-operating-characteristic-summary point estimates. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 253–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littenberg B, Moses L E. Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 313–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse M JNC. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1989
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers I. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford 1992
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Health. (1994) . Consensus conference on antenatal steroids. 1994. Bethesda
   Google Scholar
• Ohlsson A. Treatments of preterm premature rupture of the membranes: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160: 890–906
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohlsson A, Lacy J B. Perinatal clinical Epidemiology. Curr Opinion Pediatr 1993; 5: 142–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moher D, Dulberg C S, Wells G A. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994; 272: 122–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amman 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: 240–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar