Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Review

Systematic reviews and cancer research: a suggested stepwise approach

Authors: George A. Kelley, Kristi S. Kelley

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, play an important role today in synthesizing cancer research and are frequently used to guide decision-making. However, there is now an increase in the number of systematic reviews on the same topic, thereby necessitating a systematic review of previous systematic reviews. With a focus on cancer, the purpose of this article is to provide a practical, stepwise approach for systematically reviewing the literature and publishing the results. This starts with the registration of a protocol for a systematic review of previous systematic reviews and ends with the publication of an original or updated systematic review, with or without meta-analysis, in a peer-reviewed journal. Future directions as well as potential limitations of the approach are also discussed. It is hoped that the stepwise approach presented in this article will be helpful to both producers and consumers of cancer-related systematic reviews and will contribute to the ultimate goal of preventing and treating cancer.

Available only for authorised users

Davidoff F, Haynes B, Sackett D, Smith R. Evidence based medicine. BMJ. 1995;310(6987):1085–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:450–5.CrossRefPubMed

Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):132–40.CrossRefPubMed

Ioannidis JPA. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(5):485–514.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kelley GA, Kelley KS. Exercise and cancer-related fatigue in adults: a systematic review of previous systematic reviews with meta-analyses. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):693.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

JPT H, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]: The Cochrane Collaboration. p. 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Sarrami-Foroushani P, Travaglia J, Debono D, Clay-Williams R, Braithwaite J. Scoping meta-review: introducing a new methodology. Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8(1):77–81.CrossRefPubMed

Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev. 2012;1:7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Br Med J. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRef

12.

Borenstein M, Higgins JP, Hedges LV, Rothstein HR. Basics of meta-analysis: I ² is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(1):5–18.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Series A. 2009;172(1):137–59.CrossRef

14.

Lau J, Schmid CH, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care: the Potsdam international consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(1):45–57.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press; 1988.

16.

Durlak JA. How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34(9):917–28.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kraemer HC, Kupfer DJ. Size of treatment effects and their importance to clinical research and practice. Biol Psychiatry. 2006;59(11):990–6.CrossRefPubMed

18.

da Costa BR, Rutjes AW, Johnston BC, Reichenbach S, Nuesch E, Tonia T, Gemperli A, Guyatt GH, Juni P. Methods to convert continuous outcomes into odds ratios of treatment response and numbers needed to treat: meta-epidemiological study. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(5):1445–59.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Froud R, Eldridge S, Lall R, Underwood M. Estimating the number needed to treat from continuous outcomes in randomised controlled trials: methodological challenges and worked example using data from the UK back pain exercise and manipulation (BEAM) trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE. Can we individualize the 'number needed to treat'? An empirical study of summary effect measures in meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):72–6.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kelley GA, Kelley KS. Exercise and sleep: a systematic review of previous meta-analyses. J Evid Based Med. 2017;10:11.CrossRef

22.

Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, Ramsay T, Bai A, Shukla VK, Grimshaw JM. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One. 2007;2(12):e1350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, Henry DA, Boers M. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1013–20.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, Davies P, Kleijnen J, Churchill R. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401–6.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Catala-Lopez F, Tobias A, Cameron C, Moher D, Hutton B. Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction. Rheumatol Int. 2014;34(11):1489–96.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, JPT H. Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014:9(7).

30.

Cochrane Collaboration. Editorial and publishing policy resource. 2016. http://community.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.

31.

Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Garritty C, Rader T, Moher D. Updating systematic reviews: Technical review No. 16. In. Rockville:Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007.

32.

Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, MacLehose H, Schunemann HJ, Akl EA, Beyene J, Chang S, Churchill R, Dearness K, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ. 2016;354:i3507.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9. W264CrossRefPubMed

35.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–34.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, Riley RD, Simmonds M, Stewart G, Tierney JF. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1657–65.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Steinberg KK, Smith SJ, Stroup DF, Olkin I, Lee NC, Williamson GD, Thacker SB. Comparison of effect size estimates from a meta-analysis of summary data from published studies and from a meta-analysis using individual patient data for ovarian cancer studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145:917–25.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Nevitt SJ, Marson AG, Davie B, Reynolds S, Williams L, Smith CT. Exploring changes over time and characteristics associated with data retrieval across individual participant data meta-analyses: systematic review. BMJ. 2017;357:j1390.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Rouse B, Chaimani A, Li TJ. Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians. Intern Emerg Med. 2017;12(1):103–11.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Riley RD, Jackson D, Salanti G, Burke DL, Price M, Kirkham J, White IR. Multivariate and network meta-analysis of multiple outcomes and multiple treatments: rationale, concepts, and examples. Br Med J. 2017;358:j3932.CrossRef

43.

Madden LV, Piepho HP, Paul PA. Statistical models and methods for network meta-analysis. Phytopathology. 2016;106(8):792–806.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Zhang J, Carlin BP, Neaton JD, Soon GG, Nie L, Kane R, Virnig BA, Chu HT. Network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials: reporting the proper summaries. Clin Trials. 2014;11(2):246–62.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Otte JL, Carpenter JS, Manchanda S, Rand KL, Skaar TC, Weaver M, Chernyak Y, Zhong X, Igega C, Landis C. Systematic review of sleep disorders in cancer patients: can the prevalence of sleep disorders be ascertained? Cancer Med. 2015;4(2):183–200.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Mavridis D, Salanti G. A practical introduction to multivariate meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22(2):133–58.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Efthimiou O, Mavridis D, Riley RD, Cipriani A, Salanti G. Joint synthesis of multiple correlated outcomes in networks of interventions. Biostat. 2015;16(1):84–97.CrossRef

48.

Efthimiou O, Mavridis D, Cipriani A, Leucht S, Bagos P, Salanti G. An approach for modelling multiple correlated outcomes in a network of interventions using odds ratios. Stat Med. 2014;33(13):2275–87.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Hong H, Carlin BP, Shamliyan TA, Wyman JF, Ramakrishnan R, Fo S, Kane RL. Comparing bayesian and frequentist approaches for multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(5):702–14.CrossRef

50.

Hong H, Chu H, Zhang J, Carlin BP. A Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(1):6–22.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Jackson D, Bujkiewicz S, Law M, Riley RD, White IR. A matrix-based method of moments for fitting multivariate network meta-analysis models with multiple outcomes and random inconsistency effects. Biometrics. 2017. epub ahead of print.

52.

Kavvoura FK, Ioannidis JP. Methods for meta-analysis in genetic association studies: a review of their potential and pitfalls. Hum Genet. 2008;123(1):1–14.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Lee YH. Meta-analysis of genetic association studies. Ann Lab Med. 2015;35(3):283–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Munafo MR, Flint J. Meta-analysis of genetic association studies. Trends Genet. 2004;20(9):439–44.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Evangelou E, Ioannidis JPA. Meta-analysis methods for genome-wide association studies and beyond. Nat Rev Genet. 2013;14(6):379–89.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Nakaoka H, Inoue I. Meta-analysis of genetic association studies: methodologies, between-study heterogeneity and winner's curse. J Hum Genet. 2009;54:615.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Salanti G, Sanderson S, Higgins J. Obstacles and opportunities in meta-analysis of genetic association studies. Genet Med. 2005;7(1):13–20.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Systematic reviews and cancer research: a suggested stepwise approach
Authors: George A. Kelley
Kristi S. Kelley
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4163-6

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Knowledge towards cervical cancer prevention and screening practices among women who attended reproductive and child health clinic at Magu district hospital, Lake Zone Tanzania: a cross-sectional study

HtrA1 as a promising tissue marker in cancer: a meta-analysis

Antitumor activity of the polo-like kinase inhibitor, TAK-960, against preclinical models of colorectal cancer

Feasibility of concomitant cisplatin with hypofractionated radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Differential efficacy of cisplatin plus pemetrexed between L858R and Del-19 in advanced EGFR-mutant non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix: a systematic review of the literature

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer