Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:26:03.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic reviews in emergency medicine: Part I. Background and general principles for locating and critically appraising reviews

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Peter J. Zed ,
Brian H. Rowe ,
Peter S. Loewen  and
Riyad B. Abu-Laban
Peter J. Zed
Affiliation:
Clinical Service Unit Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Brian H. Rowe
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, and Capital Health Authority, Edmonton, Alta.
Peter S. Loewen
Affiliation:
Clinical Service Unit Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Riyad B. Abu-Laban
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Department of Emergency Medicine and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Reviews of the medical literature have always been an important resource for physicians. Increasingly, qualitative and quantitative “systematic reviews” have replaced the traditional “narrative review” as a means of capturing and summarizing current evidence on a topic or, when possible, answering a specific clinical question. This paper is part one of a two-part series designed to provide emergency physicians with the background necessary to locate, critically evaluate and interpret systematic reviews. The paper provides a brief background on systematic reviews and general principles on locating and critically appraising them. To facilitate readability, examples from the emergency medicine literature have been included for illustrative purposes and technical details have been kept to a minimum. The references, however, are comprehensive and provide a resource for readers seeking further information.

Keywords

systematic reviewsemergency medicineevidence-based medicine
Type
Methodology: the Science of EM • Méthodologie: Science de la MU
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 5 , Issue 5 , September 2003 , pp. 331 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2003

References

1.Cook, DJ, Mulrow, CD, Haynes, RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126:376–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Oxman, AD, Cook, DJ, Guyatt, GH. Users’ guide to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 1994;272:1367–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.McAlister, FA, Clark, HD, van Walraven, C, Straus, SE, Lawson, FME, Moher, D, Mulrow, CD. The medical review article revisited: Has the science improved? Ann Intern Med 1999;131:947–51.Google Scholar
4.Olsen, O, Middleton, P, Ezzo, J, Gotzsche, PC, Hadhazy, V, Herxheimer, A, et al. Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ 2001;323:829–32.Google Scholar
5.Kelly, KD, Travers, A, Dorgan, M, Slater, L, Rowe, BH. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med 2001;38:518–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Vissers, RJ, Abu-Laban, RB, McHugh, DF. Amylase and lipase in the emergency department evaluation of acute pancreatitis. J Emerg Med 1999;17:1027–37.Google Scholar
7.Antman, EM, Lau, J, Kupelnick, B, Mosteller, F, Chalmers, TC. 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.Google Scholar
8.Abu-Laban, RB, Zed, PJ, Purssell, RA, Evans, KG. Severe methemoglobinemia from topical anesthetic spray: case report, discussion and qualitative systematic review. Can J Emerg Med 2001; 3(1):51–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Sacks, HS, Berrier, J, Reitman, D, Ancona-Berk, VA, Chalmers, TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987;316:450–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Rowe, BH, Spooner, CH, Ducharme, FM, Bretzlaff, JA, Bota, GW. Corticosteroids for preventing relapse following acute exacerbations of asthma [Cochrane review]. In: The Cochrane Library; Issue 1, 2003. Oxford: Update Software.Google Scholar
11.Peto, R. Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials? Stat Med 1987;6:233–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Egger, M, Smith, GD, Altman, DG, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. BMJ Publishing Group: London (UK); 2001.Google Scholar
13.Hunt, DL, McKibbon, KA. Locating and appraising systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:532–8.Google Scholar
14.Emond, SD, Wyer, PC, Brown, MD, Cordell, WH, Spooner, CH, Rowe, BH. How relevant are the systematic reviews in the cochrane library to emergency medical practice? Ann Emerg Med 2002;39;153–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Counsell, C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997;127: 380–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Corrall, CJ, Wyer, PC, Zick, LS, Bockrath, CR. Evidence-based emergency medicine. How to find evidence when you need it, part 1: databases, search programs, and strategies. Ann Emerg Med 2002;39:302–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Meade, MO, Richardson, S. Selecting and appraising studies for systematic review. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:531–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Egger, M, Juni, P, Bartlett, C, Holenstein, F, Sterne, J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? [review]. Health Technol Assess 2003;7(1):1–76.Google Scholar
19.Clarke, M, Oxman, AD, editors. Cochrane reviewers’ handbook 4.1.6 [updated January 2003]. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2003. Oxford: Update Software. Updated quarterly.Google Scholar
20.Gallagher, PE, Allen, TY, Wyer, PC. How to find evidence when you need it, part 2: a clinician’s guide to MEDLINE: the basics. Ann Emerg Med 2002;39:436–40.Google Scholar
21.Gallagher, PE, Allen, TY, Wyer, PC. How to find evidence when you need it, part 3: a clinician’s guide to MEDLINE: tricks and special skills. Ann Emerg Med 2002;39:547–51.Google Scholar
22.Dickerson, K, Scherer, R, Lefebvre, C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:1286–91.Google Scholar
23.Langham, J, Thompson, E, Rowan, K. Identification of randomized controlled trials from the emergency medicine literature: comparison of hand searching versus MEDLINE searching. Ann Emerg Med 1999;34:25–34.Google Scholar