nach oben

Intensive Care Medicine

Erschienen in:

16.04.2018 | Editorial

Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? No

verfasst von: Sylvie Chevret, Niall D. Ferguson, Rinaldo Bellomo

Erschienen in: Intensive Care Medicine | Ausgabe 4/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

“Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable” Mark Twain

…

Pearson K (1904) Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. Br Med J 2:1243–1246CrossRef

Becker LA, Oxman AD (2008) Overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley, Chichester, p 607–631

Rosenberg WM (1992) Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268:2420–2425CrossRef

Herxheimer A (1993) The Cochrane Collaboration: making the results of controlled trials properly accessible. Postgrad Med J 69(817):867–868CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chandler J, Hopewell S (2013) Cochrane methods–twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods. Syst Rev 20(2):76. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-76) CrossRef

Hartling L, Chisholm A, Thomson D, Dryden DM (2012) A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One 7:e49667CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Salleh S, Thokala P, Brennan A, Hughes R, Booth A (2017) Simulation modelling in healthcare: an umbrella review of systematic literature reviews. Pharmacoeconomics 35(9):937–949CrossRefPubMed

Crick K, Wingert A, Williams K, Fernandes RM, Thomson D, Hartling L (2015) An evaluation of harvest plots to display results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol 15:91CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Alhazzani W, Alshamsi F, Belley-Cote E, Heels-Ansdell D, Brignardello-Petersen R, Alquraini M, Perner A, Møller MH, Krag M, Almenawer S, Rochwerg B, Dionne J, Jaeschke R, Alshahrani M, Deane A, Perri D, Thebane L, Al-Omari A, Finfer S, Cook D, Guyatt G (2018) Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Intensive Care Med 44(1):1–11

11.

Biau DJ, Boulezaz S, Casabianca L, Hamadouche M, Anract P, Chevret S (2017) Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment. BMC Med Res Methodol 17(1):128CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Egger M, Salanti G (2016) Continuously updated network meta-analysis and statistical monitoring for timely decision-making. Stat Methods Med Res 1:962280216659896

13.

Ioannidis JPA (2016) The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q 94(3):485–514CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Bellomo R, Bagshaw SM (2006) Evidence-based medicine: classifying the evidence from clinical trials–the need to consider other dimensions. Crit Care 10(5):232CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

LeLorier J, Grégoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F (1997) Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 337(8):536–542CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? No
verfasst von: Sylvie Chevret
Niall D. Ferguson
Rinaldo Bellomo
Publikationsdatum: 16.04.2018
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Intensive Care Medicine / Ausgabe 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0342-4642
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1238
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5066-3

Neu im Fachgebiet AINS

23.04.2024 | Appendizitis | Nachrichten

Update AINS

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

hier abonnieren

Springer Medizin

Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? No

Excerpt

Neu im Fachgebiet AINS

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Update AINS

Springer Medizin

Excerpt

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2018

Efficacy and safety of trimodulin, a novel polyclonal antibody preparation, in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter, phase II trial (CIGMA study)

Emphysematous pyelonephritis class IV

Decreased susceptibility to chlorhexidine affects a quarter of Escherichia coli isolates responsible for pneumonia in ICU patients

Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure

Tree-like colour Doppler in diagnosing pneumonia in critically ill: a picture is worth a thousand words

Adjuvant therapies in critical care: steroids in community-acquired pneumonia

Neu im Fachgebiet AINS

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Update AINS