« Previous
Next »
The Journal of Urology
Volume 180, Issue 4
, Pages 1249-1256
, October 2008
How to Use a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis
References
- . Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:43
- . Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses). Lancet. 1999;354:1896
- Many reviews are systematic but some are more transparent and completely reported than others. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e147
- . How to perform a literature search. J Urol. 2008;179:1264
- Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006;368:1171
- . Systematic reviews of surgical interventions. Surg Clin North Am. 2006;86:101
- An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:615
- . Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA. 2003;290:495
- . Factors associated with the full publication of studies presented in abstract form at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association. J Urol. 2007;177:1084
- Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? (Current convictions and controversies). JAMA. 1993;269:2749
- . The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990;263:1385
- . Users' guide to the surgical literature: how to use a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Can J Surg. 2004;47:60
- . The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ. 2006;333:597
- . Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2001;323:101
- . Evidence based clinical practice: a primer for urologists. J Urol. 2007;178:775
- . Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3 (Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic)). CMAJ. 2004;171:1369
- . The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews. BMJ. 2001;323:681
- . Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 4 (Assessing heterogeneity of primary studies in systematic reviews and whether to combine their results). CMAJ. 2005;172:661
- . Evidence-based medicine (EBM) in practice: understanding tests of heterogeneity in metaanalysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:1221
- . Users' guides to the medical literature (VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group). JAMA. 1994;272:1367
- . Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ. 2003;326:219
- . When to believe a subgroup analysis. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D editor. Users' Guide to the Medical Literature. 5th ed. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2002;p. 553–565
- . Availability of large-scale evidence on specific harms from systematic reviews of randomized trials. Am J Med. 2004;117:582
- Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336:601
- . Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42
- . Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:115
- . User's guide to the orthopaedic literature: how to use a systematic literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:1672
- . Users' Guide to the Medical Literature. 4th ed. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2002;706
Nothing to disclose.
Editor's Note: This article is the second of 5 published in this issue for which category 1 CME credits can be earned. Instructions for obtaining credits are given with the questions on pages 1578 and 1579.
PII: S0022-5347(08)01578-4
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.046
© 2008 American Urological Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
« Previous
Next »
The Journal of Urology
Volume 180, Issue 4
, Pages 1249-1256
, October 2008

