Antoniou George A, Biondi-Zoccai Giuseppe, Versaci Francesco, Antoniou Stavros A
Department of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery, The Royal Oldham Hospital, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Northern Care Alliance NHS Group, Manchester, UK.
Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, UK.
J Endovasc Ther. 2020 Oct;27(5):805-817. doi: 10.1177/1526602820939084. Epub 2020 Jul 7.
The accrual of clinical studies poses important challenges to researchers and practitioners, especially in the field of endovascular therapy, where patient, lesion, technique, and device subtleties abound. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may prove particularly fruitful in such settings by increasing statistical precision and bolstering external validity if the evidence base on a specific topic is consistent or by highlighting important discrepancies in the opposite scenario. However, mastering the correct approach to systematic review and meta-analysis is challenging for careful readers or for those interested in conducting such an evidence synthesis exercise. The present article highlights a stepwise approach to systematic reviews and meta-analyses, focusing on endovascular interventions, which will prove useful to anyone reading or wishing to synthesize the evidence base on endovascular topics to optimize decision making or shape future research efforts.
临床研究的积累给研究人员和从业者带来了重大挑战,尤其是在血管内治疗领域,该领域存在大量患者、病变、技术和设备方面的细微差别。如果特定主题的证据基础一致,系统评价和荟萃分析通过提高统计精度和增强外部有效性,可能在这种情况下特别有成效;或者在相反的情况下突出重要差异。然而,对于细心的读者或有兴趣进行此类证据综合工作的人来说,掌握系统评价和荟萃分析的正确方法具有挑战性。本文重点介绍了一种针对系统评价和荟萃分析的逐步方法,重点是血管内干预,这将对任何阅读或希望综合血管内主题的证据基础以优化决策或指导未来研究工作的人有用。