Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Intensive Care Medicine
Published in: Intensive Care Medicine 4/2018

01-04-2018 | Editorial

Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure

Authors: Morten Hylander Møller, John P. A. Ioannidis, Michael Darmon

Published in: Intensive Care Medicine | Issue 4/2018

Login to get access

Excerpt

In a traditional systematic review and meta-analysis, the best available evidence is sought, systematically identified, critically appraised and synthesised, in order to try answer some clinical or research question [1]. Systematic reviews have long been considered at the top of the evidence-based medicine study hierarchy, and the number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses has increased significantly over the past 20 years [2]. An assessment using stringent criteria a decade ago suggested that at least 2500 new systematic reviews are published each year [2]. Since then, their rate of production has increased approximately 10-fold [3]. About a third of them include quantitative syntheses (meta-analyses) [3]. …
Literature
1.
Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, Jaeschke R, Devereaux PJ, Prasad K, Neumann I, Carrasco-Labra A, Agoritsas T, Hatala R, Meade MO, Wyer P, Cook DJ, Guyatt G (2014) How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA 312:171–179CrossRefPubMed
2.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
4.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
6.
Ridgeon EE, Bellomo R, Aberegg SK, Sweeney RM, Varughese RS, Landoni G, Young PJ (2017) Effect sizes in ongoing randomized controlled critical care trials. Crit Care 21:132CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Clarke M, Brice A, Chalmers I (2014) Accumulating research: a systematic account of how cumulative meta-analyses would have provided knowledge, improved health, reduced harm and saved resources. PLoS One 9:e102670CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Juni P, Pildal J, Als-Nielsen B, Balk EM, Gluud C, Gluud LL, Ioannidis JP, Schulz KF, Beynon R, Welton NJ, Wood L, Moher D, Deeks JJ, Sterne JA (2012) Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 157:429–438CrossRefPubMed
9.
Anand V, Scales DC, Parshuram CS, Kavanagh BP (2014) Registration and design alterations of clinical trials in critical care: a cross-sectional observational study. Intensive Care Med 40:700–722CrossRefPubMed
10.
Thorlund K, Imberger G, Walsh M, Chu R, Gluud C, Wetterslev J, Guyatt G, Devereaux PJ, Thabane L (2011) The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analysis–a simulation study. PLoS One 6:e25491CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C (2008) Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 61:64–75CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S, Guyatt GH (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406CrossRefPubMed
14.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA, Group PP (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4:1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Mills EJ, Thorlund K, Ioannidis JP (2013) Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis. BMJ 346:f2914CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure
Authors
Morten Hylander Møller
John P. A. Ioannidis
Michael Darmon
Publication date
01-04-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0342-4642
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1238
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-5039-y

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Intensive Care Medicine 4/2018 Go to the issue

Editorial

Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? Yes

Editorial

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

What's New in Intensive Care

Implementing early physical rehabilitation and mobilisation in the ICU: institutional, clinician, and patient considerations

Letter

Prevalence and predictors of severe grief reactions and desire for support following a death in the intensive care unit: a multicentre observational study

Correspondence

Ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement in children: what is a really good practice?

Editorial

Using multiple 'omics strategies for novel therapies in sepsis