Systematic reviews and meta-analyses lie on the top of the evidence hierarchy because they utilize explicit methods for literature search and retrieval of studies relevant to the review question as well as robust methodology for quality assessment of included studies and quantitative synthesis of results. As opposed to narrative reviews which represent the authors’ personal judgments, they may be more resource-intensive, but provide an unbiased answer to a specific clinical query. Clinical guidelines are usually supported by such evidence syntheses. Therefore, it is important that healthcare practitioners become competent in understanding and applying systematic review findings. This simple guide outlines the key principles regarding the design, conduct and interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
MuradMHMontoriVMIoannidisJPA, et al.How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 2014;312(2):171-179.
2.
ChandlerJHopewellS. Cochrane methods—twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods. Syst Rev. 2013;2:76.
3.
PatiDLorussoLN. How to write a systematic review of the literature. HERD. 2018;11(1):15-30.
4.
OxmanADGuyattGH. The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703(1):125-134.
5.
HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJCumpstonMLiTPageMJWelchVA. (editors) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane; 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
6.
MacleodMRMichieSRobertsI, et al.Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):101-104.
7.
NissenSEWolskiK. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(24):2457-2471.
8.
PieperDRombeyT. Where to prospectively register a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2022;11(1):1-8.
9.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ.2021;372:n71.
10.
MoherDShamseerLClarkeM, et al.Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking systematic reviews in health care third edition (January 2009). University of York; 2009, Available from: www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf.
13.
BaudardMYavchitzARavaudPPerrodeauEBoutronI. Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ.2017;356:1-7.
14.
HigginsJSavovićJPageMElbersRSterneJ. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJCumpstonMLiTPageMJWelchVA, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane; 2019. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.
15.
HigginsJPTAltmanDGGøtzschePC, et al.The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ.2011;343:d5928.
16.
SterneJACSavovićJPageMJ, et al.Rob 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ.2019;366:l4898.
17.
SterneJAHernánMAReevesBC, et al.ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ.2016;355:i4919.
18.
ReitsmaJBLeeflangMMGSterneJAC, et al.QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536.
19.
EggerMSmithGDSchneiderMMinderC. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test measures of funnel plot asymmetry. BMJ.1997;315:629-634.
20.
GuyattGHOxmanADVistGE, et al.GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ.2008;336:924.
21.
SedgwickP. How to read a forest plot in a meta-analysis. BMJ.2015;351:h4028.
22.
SedgwickP. Meta-analyses: what is heterogeneity?BMJ.2015;350:h1435.
23.
YeJManiR. A systematic review and meta-analysis of nutritional supplementation in chronic lower extremity wounds. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2016;15(4):296-302.
24.
SheaBJReevesBCWellsG, et al.AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ.2017;358:j4008.
25.
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. 2018. CASP systematic review checklist. Available from http://www.casp-uk.net/#!checklists/cb36.
26.
WhitingPSavovićJHigginsJPT, et al.ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225-234.
27.
LazaridesMKLazaridouIZPapanasN. Review article: the flagship of evidence-based medicine. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2021;20(2):83-87.
28.
LazaridesMKLazaridouIZPapanasN. Bibliometric analysis: bridging informatics with science. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2023:153473462311535.
29.
DerraikJGBButlerÉMRerkasemK. Publishing without perishing: a guide to the successful reporting of clinical data. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2019;18(3):219-227.
30.
DerraikJGBParklakWAlbertBBBoonyapranaiKRerkasemK. Fundamentals of data collection in clinical studies: simple steps to avoid “garbage in, garbage out”. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2021;20(3):183-187.
