Top

Published in:

01-09-2020 | IM - REVIEW

Reading and interpreting reviews for health professionals: a practical review

Authors: Michele Antonelli, Fabio Firenzuoli, Carlo Salvarani, Gian Franco Gensini, Davide Donelli

Published in: Internal and Emergency Medicine | Issue 6/2020

Abstract

Literature reviews can be directly used by clinicians and other health professionals to support many decision-making processes. This review aims to offer health professionals an essential practical guide to critically evaluate and properly understand results of review articles published in the scientific literature. An evidence-based methodological review with step-by-step theoretical concepts and practical suggestions was developed. Key steps of this guide are: to consider the topic and the research question (a), to check the review type (b), to evaluate the methodology (with a keen focus on review guidelines, search strategy and study-selection process, evaluation of the quality and certainty of included evidence, and statistical analysis) (c), and to define the real impact of review results (d). This guide offers a description of essential and easy-to-apply key steps which can help health professionals to evaluate the reliability and implications of a literature review, and to select the latest high-quality scientific evidence to keep updated with.

Available only for authorised users

Sackett DL (1998) Evidence-based medicine. Spine 23:1085–1086. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-0005(97)80013-4CrossRefPubMed

Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F (2016) New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med 21:125–127. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Higgins JPT, Green S (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley, Chichester, UKCrossRef

Ioannidis JPA (2016) The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q 94:485–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wallach JD (2019) Meta-analysis Metastasis. JAMA Intern Med. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2999CrossRefPubMed

Clark E, Donovan EF, Schoettker P (2006) From outdated to updated, keeping clinical guidelines valid. Int J Qual Health Care 18:165–166. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzl007CrossRefPubMed

Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke M, et al (2008) A decision tool for updating Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Opportunities Fund

UpToDate. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/systematic-review-and-meta-analysis. Accessed 17 Aug 2019

About Cochrane Reviews | Cochrane Library. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews. Accessed 20 Mar 2020

10.

Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A et al (2006) Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version 1:b92

11.

Pae C-U (2015) Why systematic review rather than narrative review? Psychiatry Investig 12:417–419. https://doi.org/10.4306/pi.2015.12.3.417CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Krnic Martinic M, Pieper D, Glatt A, Puljak L (2019) Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks. BMC Med Res Methodol 19:203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0855-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Fusar-Poli P, Radua J (2018) Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evid Based Ment Health 21:95–100. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2018-300014CrossRefPubMed

15.

Rn CHE, Susan Salmond Edd, Maria Saimbert Pharmd Mlis (2016) Comprehensive systematic review for advanced practice nursing, Second Edition. Springer Publishing Company

16.

Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R et al (2012) Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev 1:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

10.1.1 (2019) Why an umbrella review? JBI Reviewer’s Manual, JBI GLOBAL WIKI. https://wiki.joannabriggs.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3178617. Accessed 27 Aug 2019

18.

PRISMA (2019) https://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/Checklist.aspx. Accessed 27 Aug 2019

19.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6:e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP et al (2011) Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: part 2. Value Health 14:429–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011CrossRefPubMed

21.

Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM et al (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 162:777–784. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385CrossRefPubMed

22.

Conway A, Clarke MJ, Treweek S et al (2017) Summary of findings tables for communicating key findings of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 350:g7624. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000044CrossRef

23.

Moher D, PRISMA-P Group, Shamseer L et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4

24.

PROSPERO (2019) https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Accessed 2 Sep 2019

25.

Allers K, Hoffmann F, Mathes T, Pieper D (2018) Systematic reviews with published protocols compared to those without: more effort, older search. J Clin Epidemiol 95:102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.005CrossRefPubMed

26.

PROSPERO (2019) https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Accessed 2 Aug 2019

27.

Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML et al (2018) A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc 106:531–541. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.283CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH (2017) Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev 6:245. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C et al (2014) PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res 14:579. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Kirkham JJ, Gargon E, Clarke M, Williamson PR (2013) Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?—a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups. Trials 14:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-21CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M (2006) Publication bias in meta-analysis. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis 1–7

33.

Study Quality Assessment Tools | National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) (2019) https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools. Accessed 14 Aug 2019

34.

Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JSW et al (2015) The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med 8:2–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12141CrossRefPubMed

35.

Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2011) Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley, New York

36.

Tonin FS, Rotta I, Mendes AM, Pontarolo R (2017) Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Pharm Pract 15:943. https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2017.01.943CrossRef

37.

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Rouse B, Chaimani A, Li T (2017) Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians. Intern Emerg Med 12:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-016-1583-7CrossRefPubMed

39.

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA et al (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64:383–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026CrossRefPubMed

40.

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Sultan S et al (2013) GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 66:151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.006CrossRefPubMed

41.

Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ et al (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015CrossRefPubMed

42.

Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Avilés R (2019) Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. J Med Libr Assoc 107:210–221. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.567CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Elsevier, Kalra P (2018) The 5 most common mistakes to avoid when you are publishing a systematic review. In: Elsevier Connect. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/authors-update/the-5-most-common-mistakes-to-avoid-when-you-are-publishing-a-systematic-review. Accessed 24 Aug 2019

44.

Common errors in meta-analysis—lessons from the Cochrane review screening programme [webinar]. https://training.cochrane.org/resource/common-errors-meta-analysis-%E2%80%93-lessons-cochrane-review-screening-programme-webinar. Accessed 24 Aug 2019

45.

Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JPT et al (2016) ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 69:225–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G et al (2017) AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Avellar SA, Thomas J, Kleinman R et al (2017) External validity: the next step for systematic reviews? Eval Rev 41:283–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X16665199CrossRefPubMed

48.

Olsen RB, Orr LL, Bell SH, Stuart EA (2013) External validity in policy evaluations that choose sites purposively. J Policy Anal Manage 32:107–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21660CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Reading and interpreting reviews for health professionals: a practical review
Authors: Michele Antonelli
Fabio Firenzuoli
Carlo Salvarani
Gian Franco Gensini
Davide Donelli
Publication date: 01-09-2020
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Internal and Emergency Medicine / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 1828-0447
Electronic ISSN: 1970-9366
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-020-02334-y

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

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.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

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 6/2020

How common is obstructive sleep apnea in young hypertensive patients?

Methodological aspects of superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials

Radiotherapy-induced malfunctions of cardiac implantable electronic devices in cancer patients

Closing the saturation gap: a ten-year retrospective experience with methemoglobinemia

Benefit of dual antithrombotic therapy with direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized clinical trials

Non-activated prothrombin complex concentrates for major bleeding in patients on apixaban and rivaroxaban

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials