Systematic reviews in hematology
Keywords:
systematic review, evidence based medicine, overview, Cochrane Collaboration, haematologyAbstract
A systematic review is a scientific tool which can be used to summarise, appraise, and communicate the results and implications of otherwise unmanageable quantities of research. It is of particular value in bringing together a number of separately conducted studies, sometimes with conflicting findings, and synthesizing their results. In this way it can be used for the evaluation of either existing or new technologies and practices. Cochrane Reviews are intended to help people make practical decisions.
Author Biography
Arturo Martí, Centro Colaborador Venezolano de la Red Iberoamericana de la Colaboración Cocbrane
Unidad de Epidemiología Clínica, Departamento de Salud Pública, Universidad de Carabobo, Venezuela; Centro Colaborador Venezolano de la Red Iberoamericana de la Colaboración Cocbrane.
References
Martí-Carvajal A, Dunlop R, Agreda-Pérez L. Tratamiento para la necrosis ósea avascular en pacientes con enfermedad de células falciformes (revisión Cochrane traducida). Biblioteca Cochrane Plus 2005;2. Oxford: Update Software Ltd. [Disponible en: URL] http://www.update-software.com. (traducida de TheCochrane Library, 2005, Issue 2. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.).
Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987;106:485-8.
https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:376-80.
https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006
Mulrow CD, Cook DJ, Davidoff F. Systematic reviews: critical links in the great chain of evidence. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:389-91.
https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00008
Lang TA. The value of systematic reviews as research activities in medical education. Acad Med 2004;79:1067-72.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200411000-00011
Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 1976;5:3-8.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
Pearson K. Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. BMJ 1904;3:1243-6.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.2288.1243
Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992;268:240-8.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03490020088036
Sanders S, Del Mar C. Clever searching for evidence. BMJ 2005;330:1162-3.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7501.1162
Anonymous. Reducing the play of chance using metaanalysis. Disponible en: http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/essays/interpretation/relevant_evidence/meta_analysis.html (Consultado el 29 de mayo de 2005).
The Cochrane Collaboration, http://www.cochrane.org/indexO.htm. Consultado el 29 de mayo de 2005.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of metaanalyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;27;354(9193) :1896-900.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5
The Cochrane Collaboration, 2003. Revisores Cochrane Manual 4.1.6. Disponible en: http://www.cochrane.es/Castellano/CC_Handbook. Consultado el 8 de junio de 2005.
Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997;350:326-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02419-7
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991;337:867-72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-Y
Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev 1997;9(Suppl.1):15-21.
Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:115-23.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/31.1.115
Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Walter SD, Werre SR, Hedges Team. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005;330:1179.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38446.498542.8F
Haynes RB, Wilczynski NL. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of diagnosis from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2004;328:1040.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38068.557998.EE
Foucault M. La arqueología del saber. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores Argentina; 2004.
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, Silverman B, Schroeder B, Reitman D, Ambroz A. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 1981;2:31-49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8
Alderson P, Green S. Cochrane Collaboration open learning material for reviewers. Disponible en: http://www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/Version1.1, November 2002. Consultado el 13 de junio de 2005.
Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness. Appendix 3. Example data extraction sheets. Disponible en: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm. Consultado el 13 de junio de 2005.
Davies S, Olujohungbe A, Jones AP. Hidroxiurea para la enfermedad de-células falciformes (Revisión Cochrane traducida). Biblioteca Cochrane Plus, 2005;2. Oxford: Update Software Ltd. Disponible en: http://www.update-software.com. (Traducida de The Cochrane Library, 2005 Issue 2. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.).
Felton DA, Lang BR. The overview: an article that interrogates the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84:17-21.
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Todos los derechos reservados.
