 |
|
Guides for Reading and Interpreting Systematic Reviews
III. How Did the Authors Synthesize the Data and Make Their Conclusions?
David Moher, MSc;
Alejandro R. Jadad, MD, DPhil;
Terry P. Klassen, MD, MSc
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152:915-920.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
In the first 2 articles in this series, we highlighted the following issues that we as readers consider when interpreting a systematic review: a well-formulated, clinically relevant question; a comprehensive search to identify relevant trials; and an assessment of the quality of the included trials. Another crucial issue in the interpretation of a systematic review is how the authors synthesized the evidence. As discussed in the first article in this series, data can be synthesized using qualitative and quantitative methods. As with any other aspect of a systematic review, readers are in a better position if they can understand and, if desired, can replicate how the authors synthesized the evidence and made their conclusions.
INTEROBSERVER RELIABILITY
At every stage in performing a systematic review, the reviewer must guard against potential bias or errors, and this is most critical at . . . [Full Text of this Article]
QUALITATIVE DATA SYNTHESIS
QUANTITATIVE DATA SYNTHESIS
METHODS OF PROVIDING RESULTS FROM DATA SYNTHESIS
EXAMINING BETWEEN-TRIAL DIFFERENCES
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
SUBGROUP ANALYSIS
PUBLICATION BIAS
GRAPHIC DISPLAY OF THE RESULTS OF SYSTEMATIC QUANTITATIVE REVIEWS
ESTABLISHING CLINICAL MEANING FROM THE RESULTS
From the Thomas C. Chalmers Center for Systematic Reviews, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute (Mr Moher and Dr Klassen), and the Departments of Pediatrics and Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Ottawa (Mr Moher and Dr Klassen), Ottawa, Ontario; and the Health Information Research Unit, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario (Dr Jadad).
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review
Olivo et al.
ptjournal 2008;88:156-175.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Is inspiratory muscle training effective for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury? A qualitative systematic review
Brooks et al.
Clin Rehabil 2005;19:237-246.
ABSTRACT
An Example of the Use of Systematic Reviews to Answer an Effectiveness Question
Forbes
West J Nurs Res 2003;25:179-192.
ABSTRACT
A Qualitative Systematic Overview of the Measurement Properties of Functional Walk Tests Used in the Cardiorespiratory Domain
Solway et al.
Chest 2001;119:256-270.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evidence-based Medicine: A New Science or an Epidemiologic Fad?
Bauchner
Pediatrics 1999;103:1029-1031.
FULL TEXT
|
