The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews.
作者信息
Hopayian K
机构信息
Seahills, Leiston Road, Aldeburgh IP15 5PL, United Kingdom.
出版信息
BMJ. 2001 Sep 22;323(7314):681-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7314.681.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews.在解读高质量系统评价时需谨慎。
BMJ. 2001 Sep 22;323(7314):681-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7314.681.
2
3
Importance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric nutrition.系统评价和荟萃分析在儿科营养中的重要性。
World Rev Nutr Diet. 2013;108:1-10. doi: 10.1159/000351479. Epub 2013 Sep 6.
4
The pitfalls of narrative reviews in clinical medicine.临床医学中叙述性综述的缺陷。
Ann Oncol. 1998 Jun;9(6):601-5. doi: 10.1023/a:1008299304900.
5
Clinical application of findings of clinical trials and systematic reviews.临床试验和系统评价结果的临床应用。
Postgrad Med J. 2002 Mar;78(917):129-30. doi: 10.1136/pmj.78.917.129.
6
Evidence-based reviews and meta-analysis.循证综述与荟萃分析。
Am J Ophthalmol. 2010 May;149(5):701-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.09.001.
7
[How to assess the quality of systematic review and meta-analysis].[如何评估系统评价和荟萃分析的质量]
Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. 2008 Apr;6(4):337-40. doi: 10.3736/jcim20080402.
8
Introduction to neonatal systematic reviews.新生儿系统评价介绍
Pediatrics. 1997 Nov;100(5):892-5. doi: 10.1542/peds.100.5.892.
9
Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.系统评价和Meta分析中的方法学问题。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 May(422):272; author reply 273-4. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000127919.67511.ce.
10
Cochrane Reviews: Four Proposals for Improvement.Cochrane系统评价：四项改进建议。
J Palliat Med. 2015 Nov;18(11):906-7. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2015.0382. Epub 2015 Oct 2.
引用本文的文献
1
Comments on "Anthropometry and Current Aesthetic Concept of the Lower Third of the Face and Lips in Caucasian Adult Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis".关于《白种人成年人群面部和唇部下三分之一的人体测量学与当前美学概念：系统评价与荟萃分析》的评论
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 Jun;49(11):3272-3273. doi: 10.1007/s00266-024-04354-x. Epub 2024 Sep 3.
2
Quality of the Evidence Supporting the Role of Oral Nutritional Supplements in the Management of Malnutrition: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.支持口服营养补充剂在营养管理中作用的证据质量：系统评价和荟萃分析概述。
Adv Nutr. 2021 Mar 31;12(2):503-522. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmaa108.
3
A commentary on randomized clinical trials: How to produce them with a good level of evidence.关于随机临床试验的评论：如何以较高证据水平开展此类试验。
Perspect Clin Res. 2016 Apr-Jun;7(2):75-80. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.179432.
4
Effect of caudal epidural steroid or saline injection in chronic lumbar radiculopathy: multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial.硬膜外骶管注射皮质类固醇或生理盐水治疗慢性腰椎神经根病的效果：多中心、盲法、随机对照试验。
BMJ. 2011 Sep 13;343:d5278. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5278.
5
Opposing systematic reviews: the effects of two quality rating instruments on evidence regarding t'ai chi and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women.相反的系统评价：两种质量评价工具对绝经后妇女太极拳与骨密度关系的证据的影响。
J Altern Complement Med. 2011 May;17(5):389-95. doi: 10.1089/acm.2010.0175. Epub 2011 May 6.
6
Disagreement in primary study selection between systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy.负压伤口治疗系统评价中在主要研究选择方面存在分歧。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Jun 26;8:41. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-41.
7
Value of predictive instruments to determine persisting restriction of function in patients with subacute non-specific low back pain. Systematic review.预测工具对确定亚急性非特异性下腰痛患者持续功能受限的价值。系统评价。
Eur Spine J. 2007 Nov;16(11):1755-75. doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0433-8. Epub 2007 Aug 15.
8
Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review.Cochrane系统评价与行业支持的Meta分析及相同药物的其他Meta分析的比较：系统评价
BMJ. 2006 Oct 14;333(7572):782. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B. Epub 2006 Oct 6.
9
Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study.遵循QUOROM标准及关于乙酰半胱氨酸在预防对比剂相关性肾病中作用的重叠荟萃分析的报告质量：案例研究
BMJ. 2006 Jan 28;332(7535):202-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38693.516782.7C. Epub 2006 Jan 16.
10
Treating C. difficile.治疗艰难梭菌感染。
CMAJ. 2005 Feb 15;172(4):447-8. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1041646.
本文引用的文献
1
A critical review of reviews on the treatment of chronic low back pain.对慢性下腰痛治疗相关综述的批判性评价。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Apr 1;26(7):E155-62. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200104010-00018.
2
Why we need a broad perspective on meta-analysis. It may be crucially important for patients.为什么我们需要对荟萃分析有一个广阔的视角。这对患者可能至关重要。
BMJ. 2000 Sep 9;321(7261):585-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7261.585.
3
Injection therapy for subacute and chronic benign low back pain.亚急性和慢性良性下腰痛的注射治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD001824. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001824.
4
Teasing apart quality and validity in systematic reviews: an example from acupuncture trials in chronic neck and back pain.在系统评价中区分质量和有效性：以慢性颈肩腰背痛针灸试验为例。
Pain. 2000 May;86(1-2):119-32. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00234-7.
5
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation.关于哮喘治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析：批判性评估
BMJ. 2000 Feb 26;320(7234):537-40. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7234.537.
6
7
How do two meta-analyses of similar data reach opposite conclusions?对相似数据进行的两项荟萃分析为何会得出相反的结论？
BMJ. 1999 Mar 27;318(7187):873-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7187.873b.
8
Detecting the effects of thromboprophylaxis: the case of the rogue reviews.检测血栓预防的效果：恶意评论的案例
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):665-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.665.
9
Epidural corticosteroid injections for sciatica due to herniated nucleus pulposus.硬膜外注射皮质类固醇治疗因髓核突出导致的坐骨神经痛。
N Engl J Med. 1997 Jun 5;336(23):1634-40. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199706053362303.
10
A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.解读不一致的系统评价指南。
CMAJ. 1997 May 15;156(10):1411-6.
Zotero 插件