Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
https://app.periodikos.com.br/journal/rba/article/doi/10.1016/j.bjane.2019.03.003
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
Review Article

Tutorial for performing systematic review and meta-analysis with interventional anesthesia studies

Tutorial para execução de revisões sistemáticas e metanálises com estudos de intervenção em anestesia

Fabiano Timbó Barbosa; Amanda Bastos Lira; Olavo Barbosa de Oliveira Neto; Leyna Leite Santos; Isabelle Oliveira Santos; Luciano Timbó Barbosa; Marina Viegas Moura Rezende Ribeiro; Célio Fernando de Sousa-Rodrigues

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2019.03.003 Braz J Anesthesiol, vol.69, n3, p.299-306, 2019
PDF English
PDF Português
Downloads: 2
Views: 1220

Abstract

Abstract Background and objective: The systematic review of randomized clinical trials is crucial to assess the safety and effectiveness of intermediate procedures. The objective of this article is to present a tutorial for the planning and execution of systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trial studies. Method: The systematic literature review is the type of research that organizes, criticizes, and integrates available evidence published in the health field. Systematization leads to less bias, however, the quality of systematic reviews may not always be perceived due to the way it is described in the articles. The information disclosed in the articles is not always free of bias. The steps for carrying out a systematic review include design, protocol registration, implementation, mathematical analysis of results, and dissemination. PRISMA statement has improved the quality of systematic review reports by providing a list of items to be described, and this article emphasizes the key steps for performing a systematic review of interventions. Conclusion: The evidence generated through a systematic review can provide the clinician with greater confidence in decision making at the moment of clinical practice and optimize the benefits to his patients, serving as a tool to assist managers in making decisions regarding the implementation of new strategies for the health of the population.

Keywords

Systematic review, Meta-analysis, Randomized clinical trial, PRISMA statement

Resumo

Resumo Justificativa e objetivo: A revisão sistemática de ensaios clínicos randomizados é crucial para avaliar a segurança e a efetividade das intervenções médicas. O objetivo deste artigo é apresentar um tutorial para o planejamento e execução de revisões sistemáticas e metanálises de estudos de ensaios clínicos randomizados. Método: A revisão sistemática da literatura é o tipo de pesquisa que organiza, critica e integra as evidências disponíveis publicadas na áera da saúde. A sistematização leva a menos vieses, entretanto a qualidade das revisões sistemáticas nem sempre pode ser percebida devido à forma como têm sido descritas nos artigos. A informação divulgada nos artigos nem sempre está livre de vieses. Os passos para a revisão sistemática incluem o delineamento, o registro do protocolo, a execução, a análise matemática dos resultados e a divulgação. O PRISMA statement melhorou a qualidade dos relatos das revisões sistemáticas, pois fornece uma lista de itens a serem descritos, e este artigo enfatiza os principais passos para a execução de uma revisão sistemática de intervenção. Conclusão: A evidência gerada por meio de uma revisão sistemática pode propiciar ao médico maior confiança na tomada de decisões no momento da prática clínica, aprimorar os benefícios aos seus pacientes e servir como ferramenta para auxiliar os gestores na tomada de decisões quanto à implantação de novas estratégias em prol da saúde da população.

Palavras-chave

Revisão sistemática, Metanálise, Ensaio clínico randomizado, PRISMA statement

References

Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, Egan KJ. Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: a practical guide. J Neurosci Methods. 2014;221:92-102.

Manchikanti L. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations. Pain Physician. 2008;11:161-86.

Mickenautsch S. Systematic reviews, systematic error and the acquisition of clinical knowledge. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:53.

Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011.

Chandler J, Churchill R, Higgins J. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR): methodological standard for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews. 2017.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6.

Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225-34.

Kranke P. Evidence-based practice: how to perform and use systematic reviews for clinical decision-making. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:763-72.

Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23-9.

Mancini MC, Cardoso JR, Sampaio RF. Tutorial para elaboração de revisões sistemáticas para o Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy. Braz J Phys Ther. 2014;18:471-80.

Petrisor BA, Bhandari M. The hierarchy of evidence: levels and grades of recommendation. Indian J Orthop. 2007;41:11-5.

Shojania KG, Bero LA. Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. Eff Clin Pract. 2001;4:157-62.

Booth A. “Brimful of STARLITE”: toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Lib Assoc. 2006;94:421-9.

Shea BJ, Reeves BJ, Wells G. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

Barbosa FT, Castro AA, Sousa-Rodrigues CF. Neuraxial anesthesia for orthopedic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Sao Paulo Med J. 2013;131:411-21.

Bothwell LE, Greene JA, Podolsky SH. Assessing the gold standard - lessons from the history of RCTs. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2175-81.

Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care [Online]. 2009.

Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT. Introduction to meta-analysis. 2009.

Perera R, Heneghan C. Interpreting meta-analysis in systematic reviews. Evid Based Med. 2008;13:67-9.

Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663-94.

Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336:601-5.

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

Edwards TB. What is the value of a systematic review?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23:1-2.

Manchikanti L, Benyamin RM, Helm S. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 3: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials. Pain Physician. 2009;12:35-72.

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.

5dc5696e0e8825c562593253 rba Articles
Links & Downloads
2352-2291 (Electronic) 0104-0014 (Printed)
Braz J Anesthesiol ©2024 All rights reserved.

Braz J Anesthesiol

Share this page
Page Sections