Log in | Register

Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? No

Sylvie Chevret| Niall D. Ferguson| Rinaldo Bellomo
Editorial
Volume 44, Issue 4 / April , 2018

Pages 515 - 517

No abstract available.

References

  1. Pearson K (1904) Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. Br Med J 2:1243–1246
    • View reference on publisher's website
  2. Becker LA, Oxman AD (2008) Overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley, Chichester, p 607–631
  3. Rosenberg WM (1992) Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268:2420–2425
    • View reference on publisher's website
  4. Herxheimer A (1993) The Cochrane Collaboration: making the results of controlled trials properly accessible. Postgrad Med J 69(817):867–868
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  5. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:10
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  6. Chandler J, Hopewell S (2013) Cochrane methods–twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods. Syst Rev 20(2):76. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-76)
    • View reference on publisher's website
  7. Hartling L, Chisholm A, Thomson D, Dryden DM (2012) A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One 7:e49667
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  8. Salleh S, Thokala P, Brennan A, Hughes R, Booth A (2017) Simulation modelling in healthcare: an umbrella review of systematic literature reviews. Pharmacoeconomics 35(9):937–949
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  9. Crick K, Wingert A, Williams K, Fernandes RM, Thomson D, Hartling L (2015) An evaluation of harvest plots to display results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol 15:91
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  10. Alhazzani W, Alshamsi F, Belley-Cote E, Heels-Ansdell D, Brignardello-Petersen R, Alquraini M, Perner A, Møller MH, Krag M, Almenawer S, Rochwerg B, Dionne J, Jaeschke R, Alshahrani M, Deane A, Perri D, Thebane L, Al-Omari A, Finfer S, Cook D, Guyatt G (2018) Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Intensive Care Med 44(1):1–11
  11. Biau DJ, Boulezaz S, Casabianca L, Hamadouche M, Anract P, Chevret S (2017) Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment. BMC Med Res Methodol 17(1):128
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  12. Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Egger M, Salanti G (2016) Continuously updated network meta-analysis and statistical monitoring for timely decision-making. Stat Methods Med Res 1:962280216659896
  13. Ioannidis JPA (2016) The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q 94(3):485–514
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  14. Bellomo R, Bagshaw SM (2006) Evidence-based medicine: classifying the evidence from clinical trials–the need to consider other dimensions. Crit Care 10(5):232
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed
  15. LeLorier J, Grégoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F (1997) Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 337(8):536–542
    • View reference on publisher's website
    • View reference on PubMed

Sign In

Connect with ICM

Top 5 Articles Editors Picks Supplement