Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations.
Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12874-018-0495-9
复制
发表时间：
2018-05-21
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Scott P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mueller M;D'Addario M;Egger M;Cevallos M;Dekkers O;Mugglin C;Scott P
经常对观察性研究进行系统评价和荟萃分析，但目前还没有得到广泛接受的指导。我们对已发表的关于如何系统评价和荟萃分析观察性研究的方法学建议进行了系统的范围综述。我们搜索了在线数据库和网站，并联系了该领域的专家，以找到可能符合条件的文章。我们纳入了对如何对观察性研究进行系统评价和荟萃分析提供任何类型建议的文章。我们提取并总结了关于预先定义的关键项目的建议：方案制定、研究问题、搜索策略、研究资格、数据提取、处理不同的研究设计、偏倚风险评估、发表偏倚、异质性、统计分析。我们按关键项目总结建议，确定达成一致和存在分歧的领域，以及缺少或缺乏建议的领域。检索结果为2461篇文章，其中93篇符合条件。许多关于观察性研究综述和荟萃分析的建议是从为随机对照试验综述和荟萃分析制定的指南中转移过来的。虽然在一些方法学领域有实质性的一致意见，但在如何进行观察性研究的证据综合方面也存在相当大的分歧。在诸如系统评价和荟萃分析中纳入不同研究设计、使用质量量表评估偏倚风险以及荟萃分析模型的选择（例如固定效应与随机效应）等主题上，可以看到相互矛盾的建议。有必要对如何对观察性研究进行系统评价和荟萃分析提供可靠的方法指导，以批判性地考虑存在相互矛盾建议的领域。本文的在线版本（10.1186/s12874-018-0495-9）包含补充材料，授权用户可使用。
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies are frequently performed, but no widely accepted guidance is available at present. We performed a systematic scoping review of published methodological recommendations on how to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies. We searched online databases and websites and contacted experts in the field to locate potentially eligible articles. We included articles that provided any type of recommendation on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. We extracted and summarised recommendations on pre-defined key items: protocol development, research question, search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction, dealing with different study designs, risk of bias assessment, publication bias, heterogeneity, statistical analysis. We summarised recommendations by key item, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement as well as areas where recommendations were missing or scarce. The searches identified 2461 articles of which 93 were eligible. Many recommendations for reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies were transferred from guidance developed for reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs. Although there was substantial agreement in some methodological areas there was also considerable disagreement on how evidence synthesis of observational studies should be conducted. Conflicting recommendations were seen on topics such as the inclusion of different study designs in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the use of quality scales to assess the risk of bias, and the choice of model (e.g. fixed vs. random effects) for meta-analysis. There is a need for sound methodological guidance on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, which critically considers areas in which there are conflicting recommendations. The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0495-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Guyatt, Gordon H.;Oxman, Andrew D.;Schuenemann, Holger J.
通讯作者：
Schuenemann, Holger J.
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Haynes, R Brian;Kastner, Monika;Wilczynski, Nancy L
通讯作者：
Wilczynski, Nancy L
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Ashford, Derek;Davids, Keith;Bennett, Simon J.
通讯作者：
Bennett, Simon J.
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Funai, EF;Rosenbush, EJ;Del Priore, G
通讯作者：
Del Priore, G
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Guyatt, Gordon H.;Oxman, Andrew D.;Schuenemann, Holger J.
通讯作者：
Schuenemann, Holger J.