Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2014-7
Guida Alla Lettura dei Risultati Della Metanalisi Dello Studio: “Medical Management to Prevent Recurrent Nephrolithiasis in Adults: A Systematic Review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Guideline”
FinkH.A., WiltT.J., EidmanK.E.. Medical management to prevent recurrent nephrolithiasis in adults: a systematic review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Guideline.Ann Intern Med2013; 158(7): 535–43.
2.
BanziR., MojaL., PistottiV., FacchiniA., LiberatiA.. Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews.Health Res Policy Syst2011; 9: 26.
3.
BeroL.A., RennieD.. The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care.JAMA1995; 274: 1935–8.
4.
BrunettiM., ShemiltI., PregnoS., ValeL., OxmanA.D., LordJ., SiskJ., RuizF., HillS., GuyattG.H., JaeschkeR., HelfandM., HarbourR., DavoliM., AmatoL., LiberatiA., SchünemannH.J.. GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence.J Clin Epidemiol2013; 66(2): 140–50.
5.
DerSimonianR., LairdN.. Meta-analysis in clinical trials.Control Clin Trials1986; 7: 177–88.
6.
EggerM., SmithG.D.. Meta-analysis. Potentials and promise.BMJ1997; 315: 1371–4.
7.
GuyattG.H., OxmanA.D., KunzR., VistG.E., Falck-YtterY., SchünemannH.J.; GRADE Working Group. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?BMJ2008; 336(7651): 995–8.
8.
GuyattG.H., OxmanA.D., VistG.E., KunzR., Falck-YtterY., Alonso-CoelloP., SchünemannH.J.; GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.BMJ2008; 336(7650): 924–6.
IoannidisJ.P., CappelleriJ.C., LauJ.. Issues in comparison between meta-analyses and large trials.JAMA1998; 279: 1089–93.
11.
IoannidisJ.P., LauJ.. Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified?Lancet1998; 352(9128): 590–1.
12.
LauJ.. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care.J Clin Epidemiol1995; 48: 45–57.
13.
LeLorierJ.. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized controlled trials.N Engl J Med1997; 337: 536–42.
14.
LiberatiA., AltmanD.G., TetzlaffJ.. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.BMJ2009; 339: b2700.
15.
LiberatiA., AltmanD.G., TetzlaffJ.. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.J Clin Epidemiol2009; 62(10): e1–34.
16.
LiberatiA., D'AmicoR.. Commentary: The debate on non-inferiority trials: ‘when meta-analysis alone is not helpful’.Int J Epidemiol2010; 39(6): 1582–3.
17.
LiberatiA.. The Cochrane collaboration as key player in the struggle for better and more relevant patients- and system-oriented research.Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci2011; 20: 225–30.
18.
MoherD., LiberatiA., TetzlaffJ., AltmanDG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.J Clin Epidemiol2009; 62(10): 1006–12.
19.
MoherD., LiberatiA., TetzlaffJ., AltmanDG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.BMJ2009; 339: b2535.
20.
MoherD., LiberatiA., TetzlaffJ., AltmanDG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.Int J Surg2010; 8(5): 336–41.
21.
MojaL., MoschettiI., LiberatiA., GensiniG.F., GusinuR.. Understanding systematic reviews: the meta-analysis graph (also called ‘forest plot’).Intern Emerg Med2007; 2(2): 140–2.
22.
RothwellP.M.. Can overall results of clinical trials be applied to all patients?Lancet1995; 345: 1616–9.
23.
StafoggiaM., ColaisP., SerinelliM; Gruppo collaborativo EpiAir. [Methods of statistical analysis to evaluate the short term effects of air pollution in the EpiAir Project].Epidemiol Prev2009; 33(6 Suppl 1): 53–63.
24.
ThompsonS.G.. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated.BMJ1994; 309: 1351–5.
