Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:18:07.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic reviews in emergency medicine: Part II. Critical appraisal of review quality, data synthesis and result interpretation

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
*
CSU Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vancouver General Hospital, 855 West 12th Ave., Vancouver BC V5Z 1M9; 604 875-4077, fax 604 875-5267, [email protected]

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 (SRs) 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 II of a 2-part series designed to provide emergency physicians with the background necessary to locate, critically evaluate and interpret SRs. The paper expands on the critical appraisal principles discussed in Part I by focusing on quality assessment, data synthesis and interpretation of results. To illustrate key points and facilitate readability, examples from the emergency medicine literature have been included 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 6 , November 2003 , pp. 406 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2003

References

1.Zed, PJ, Rowe, BH, Loewen, PS, Abu-Laban, RB.Systematic reviews in emergency medicine: Part I. Background and general principles for locating and critically appraising reviews. Can J Emerg Med 2003;5(5):331–5.Google Scholar
2.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.Google Scholar
3.Meade, MO, Richardson, S.Selecting and appraising studies for systematic review. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:531–7.Google Scholar
4.Moher, D, Pham, B, Jones, A, Cook, DJ, Jadad, AR, Moher, M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Moher, D, Cook, DJ, Eastwood, S, Olkin, I, Rennie, D, Stroup, DF.Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896–900.Google Scholar
6.Jadad, AR, Moore, RA, Carroll, D, Jenkinson, C, Reynolds, DJ, Gavaghan, DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1–12.Google Scholar
7.Clark, HD, Wells, GA, Huet, C, McAlister, FA, Salmi, LR, Fergusson, D, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials 1999;20:448–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Rowe, BH, Bretzlaff, JA, Bourdon, C, Bota, GW, Camargo, CA Jr. Intravenous magnesium sulfate treatment for acute asthma in the emergency department: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Emerg Med 2000;36:181–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.van den Belt, AGM, Prins, MH, Lensing, AWA, Castro, AA, Clark, OAC, Atallah, AN, et al. Fixed dose subcutaneous low molecular weight heparins versus adjusted dose unfractionated heparin for venous thromboembolism [Cochrane review]. In: The Cochrane Library; Issue 2, 2001. Oxford: Update Software.Google Scholar
10.Rowe, BH, Spooner, CH, Ducharme, FM, Bretzlaff, JA, Bota, GW.Early emergency department treatment of acute asthma with systemic corticosteroids [Cochrane review]. In: The Cochrane Library; Issue 2, 2000. Oxford: Update Software.Google Scholar
11.Clarke, M, Oxman, AD, editors. Cochrane reviewers’ handbook 4.1.6 [updated Jan 2003]. In: The Cochrane Library; Issue 1, 2003. Oxford: Update Software. Updated quarterly.Google Scholar
12.Worster, A, Rowe, BH.Measures of association: an overview with examples from Canadian emergency medicine research. Can J Emerg Med 2001;3(3):219–23.Google Scholar
13.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
14.Oxman, AD, Guyatt, GH.A consumer’s guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:78–84.Google Scholar
15.Moher, D, Schultz, KF, Altman, DG.The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191–4.Google Scholar