Document Detail

Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  25466903     Owner:  NLM     Status:  Publisher    
BACKGROUND: Prognostic factors are associated with the risk of future health outcomes in individuals with a particular health condition. The prognostic ability of such factors is increasingly being assessed in both primary research and systematic reviews. Systematic review methodology in this area is continuing to evolve, reflected in variable approaches to key methodological aspects. The aim of this article was to (i) explore and compare the methodology of systematic reviews of prognostic factors undertaken for the same clinical question, (ii) to discuss implications for review findings, and (iii) to present recommendations on what might be considered to be 'good practice' approaches.
METHODS: The sample was comprised of eight systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, namely whether 'aspirin resistance' (a potential prognostic factor) has prognostic utility relative to future vascular events in patients on aspirin therapy for secondary prevention. A detailed comparison of methods around study identification, study selection, quality assessment, approaches to analysis, and reporting of findings was undertaken and the implications discussed. These were summarised into key considerations that may be transferable to future systematic reviews of prognostic factors.
RESULTS: Across systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, there were considerable differences in the numbers of studies identified and overlap between included studies, which could only partially be explained by different study eligibility criteria. Incomplete reporting and differences in terminology within primary studies hampered study identification and selection process across reviews. Quality assessment was highly variable and only one systematic review considered a checklist for studies of prognostic questions. There was inconsistency between reviews in approaches towards analysis, synthesis, addressing heterogeneity and reporting of results.
CONCLUSIONS: Different methodological approaches may ultimately affect the findings and interpretation of systematic reviews of prognostic research, with implications for clinical decision-making.Systematic review registration: This review of systematic reviews in one medical area has been used to generate a number of recommendations for those undertaking systematic reviews of prognostic research; these include a step-wise hierarchical approach to study selection and suggested approaches for analysis (e.g. maximisation of data for meta-analysis). This work adds to and extends the growing body of methodological evidence in this field.
Janine Dretzke; Joie Ensor; Sue Bayliss; James Hodgkinson; Marie Lordkipanidzé; Richard D Riley; David Fitzmaurice; David Moore
Related Documents :
24733253 - Multicentric reticulohistiocytosis: case report with response to infliximab and review ...
19141933 - Categorical similarity comparison of ciren and nass.
25206203 - A radiological review of ewing's sarcoma of mandible: a case report with one year follo...
Publication Detail:
Type:  JOURNAL ARTICLE     Date:  2014-12-3
Journal Detail:
Title:  Systematic reviews     Volume:  3     ISSN:  2046-4053     ISO Abbreviation:  Syst Rev     Publication Date:  2014 Dec 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2014-12-3     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  2014-12-4    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101580575     Medline TA:  Syst Rev     Country:  -    
Other Details:
Languages:  ENG     Pagination:  140     Citation Subset:  -    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Commensal microbiota is hepatoprotective and prevents liver fibrosis in mice.
Next Document:  Small-intestinal or colonic microbiota as a potential amino acid source in animals.