• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Systematic review and meta-analysis: Which pitfalls to avoid during this process.

作者信息

Granados-Duque Valeria, García-Perdomo Herney Andrés

机构信息

Hospital Universitario Del Valle Evaristo Garcia, Cali, Colômbia.

Universidad Del Valle, Cali, Colômbia.

出版信息

Int Braz J Urol. 2021 Sep-Oct;47(5):1037-1041. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2020.0746.

DOI:10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2020.0746
PMID:33566472
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8321450/
Abstract
摘要

相似文献

1
Systematic review and meta-analysis: Which pitfalls to avoid during this process.系统评价与荟萃分析：在此过程中应避免哪些陷阱。
Int Braz J Urol. 2021 Sep-Oct;47(5):1037-1041. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2020.0746.
2
Getting the systematic review basics right helps clinical practice: 4 common pitfalls for systematic review authors to avoid.正确掌握系统评价的基础知识有助于临床实践：系统评价作者应避免的4个常见陷阱。
Br J Sports Med. 2019 Jan;53(1):6-8. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098239. Epub 2017 Dec 7.
3
The role of systematic reviews in clinical research and practice.系统评价在临床研究与实践中的作用。
Clin Plast Surg. 2008 Apr;35(2):207-14. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2007.10.003.
4
Most published meta-regression analyses based on aggregate data suffer from methodological pitfalls: a meta-epidemiological study.多数基于汇总数据的发表的荟萃回归分析存在方法学缺陷：一项荟萃流行病学研究。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Jun 15;21(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01310-0.
5
Pitfalls in meta-analyses on adverse events reported from clinical trials.临床试验不良反应报告的荟萃分析中的陷阱。
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011 Oct;20(10):1014-20. doi: 10.1002/pds.2208. Epub 2011 Aug 19.
6
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls.系统评价和随机试验的荟萃分析：原则与陷阱。
Eur Heart J. 2014 Dec 14;35(47):3336-45. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu424.
7
Radiomics in nuclear medicine: robustness, reproducibility, standardization, and how to avoid data analysis traps and replication crisis.核医学中的放射组学：稳健性、可重复性、标准化，以及如何避免数据分析陷阱和再现性危机。
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Dec;46(13):2638-2655. doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04391-8. Epub 2019 Jun 25.
8
Common methodological pitfalls and new developments in systematic review meta-analyses.系统评价荟萃分析中的常见方法学陷阱与新进展
Br J Dermatol. 2019 Oct;181(4):649-651. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18336.
9
Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics and Perils of Pooling. Part 3: Pearls and Pitfalls of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews.研究亮点：统计学的意义与合并的危险。第 3 部分：荟萃分析和系统评价的要点与陷阱。
Arthroscopy. 2017 Aug;33(8):1594-1602. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.01.055. Epub 2017 Apr 27.
10
The promise and pitfalls of systematic reviews.系统评价的前景与陷阱
Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:81-102. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102239.

引用本文的文献

1
Methodological and Systematic Errors in Systematic Reviews in Health Domain: A Systematic Review.健康领域系统评价中的方法学和系统性错误：一项系统评价
Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2025 May 6;39:64. doi: 10.47176/mjiri.39.64. eCollection 2025.
2
Response: Commentary: Human gut, breast, and oral microbiome in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.回应：评论：乳腺癌中的人体肠道、乳腺和口腔微生物群：一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
Front Oncol. 2023 Oct 30;13:1279862. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1279862. eCollection 2023.
3
How to perform and write a systematic review and meta-analysis.如何进行及撰写系统评价与Meta分析。
Child Health Nurs Res. 2023 Jul;29(3):161-165. doi: 10.4094/chnr.2023.29.3.161. Epub 2023 Jul 31.
4
Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.比较微创经皮肾镜取石术和标准经皮肾镜取石术治疗>2cm 肾结石：系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int Braz J Urol. 2022 Jul-Aug;48(4):637-648. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2021.0347.

本文引用的文献

1
A Guide for Systematic Reviews: PRISMA.系统评价指南：PRISMA
Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2019 Mar;57(1):57-58. doi: 10.5152/tao.2019.4058. Epub 2019 Mar 14.
2
Enhancing the quality and transparency of systematic reviews.提高系统评价的质量和透明度。
Colomb Med (Cali). 2018 Dec 30;49(4):251-253. doi: 10.25100/cm.v49i4.4248.
3
Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies.在评估包括随机和非随机研究的系统综述时，AMSTAR 2 与 ROBIS 之间存在细微差异。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Apr;108:26-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.004. Epub 2018 Dec 10.
4
Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability.系统评价中的质量评估与偏倚风险：AMSTAR 和 ROBIS 具有相似的可靠性，但在结构和适用性上有所不同。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jul;99:24-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.024. Epub 2018 Mar 8.
5
How to do a systematic review.如何进行系统评价。
Int J Stroke. 2018 Feb;13(2):138-156. doi: 10.1177/1747493017743796. Epub 2017 Nov 17.
6
AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.AMSTAR 2：一种用于系统评价的关键评估工具，该系统评价包括医疗保健干预措施的随机或非随机研究，或两者皆有。
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008.
7
Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study.生物医学研究系统评价的流行病学及报告特征：一项横断面研究
PLoS Med. 2016 May 24;13(5):e1002028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028. eCollection 2016 May.
8
ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed.ROBIS：一种用于评估系统评价中偏倚风险的新工具被开发出来。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:225-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005. Epub 2015 Jun 16.
9
PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews.PICO、PICOS和SPIDER：三种定性系统评价检索工具特异性和敏感性的比较研究
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Nov 21;14:579. doi: 10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0.
10
How to appraise a systematic review.如何评估一项系统评价。
Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2013 Jun;74(6):331-4. doi: 10.12968/hmed.2013.74.6.331.