How to use a review article: Prophylactic endoscopic sclerotherapy for esophageal varices

被引:5
作者
Cook, DJ
Levy, MM
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Dept Med, Div Crit Care, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Dept Med, Div Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[3] Brown Univ, Dept Med, Div Crit Care, Providence, RI 02912 USA
[4] Queens Univ, Dept Med, Div Crit Care, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
关键词
review; systematic review; meta-analysis; critical appraisal; evidence based medicine; critical care; esophageal varices; gastrointestinal bleeding; sclerotherapy; prevention;
D O I
10.1097/00003246-199804000-00017
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 [临床医学]; 100602 [中西医结合临床];
摘要
Objective: To assess the validity of a meta-analysis about sclerotherapy for the primary prevention of bleeding from esophageal varices, to interpret the results, and discuss whether they apply in practice. Data Sources: Critical appraisal techniques for systematic reviews. Data Extraction: Systematic reviews are distinct from narrative reviews in that they answer specific clinical questions, and have explicit and reproducible methods for searching, selecting, and appraising the primary studies, to create the most valid synthesis of the evidence. Data Synthesis: Meta-analyses are systematic reviews containing a critical appraisal and statistical summary of individual study results and their confidence limits, whereas qualitative systematic reviews provide a narrative executive summary of study results, Conclusions: High-quality systematic reviews are being used increasingly to guide practice, strengthening the link between research results and improved health outcomes. Understanding their strengths and limitations helps has to use them appropriately in practice.
引用
收藏
页码:692 / 700
页数:9
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]
AERDTS SJA, 1993, BRIT MED J, V307, P525
[2]
[Anonymous], [No title captured]
[3]
*ANT TRIAL COLL, 1994, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V308, P83
[4]
A COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF METAANALYSES OF RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF CLINICAL EXPERTS - TREATMENTS FOR MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION [J].
ANTMAN, EM ;
LAU, J ;
KUPELNICK, B ;
MOSTELLER, F ;
CHALMERS, TC .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1992, 268 (02) :240-248
[5]
Using systematic reviews in clinical education [J].
Badgett, RG ;
OKeefe, M ;
Henderson, MC .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1997, 126 (11) :886-891
[6]
MISUNDERSTANDING METAANALYSIS [J].
BANGERTDROWNS, RL .
EVALUATION & THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 1995, 18 (03) :304-314
[7]
PUBLICATION BIAS - A PROBLEM IN INTERPRETING MEDICAL DATA [J].
BEGG, CB ;
BERLIN, JA .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, 1988, 151 :419-463
[8]
How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making [J].
Bero, LA ;
Jadad, AR .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1997, 127 (01) :37-42
[9]
BHARGAVA DK, 1992, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V87, P182
[10]
DISCORDANCE BETWEEN METAANALYSES AND LARGE-SCALE RANDOMIZED, CONTROLLED TRIALS - EXAMPLES FROM THE MANAGEMENT OF ACUTE MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION [J].
BORZAK, S ;
RIDKER, PM .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1995, 123 (11) :873-877