Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Systematic reviews in emergency medicine: Part II. Critical appraisal of review quality, data synthesis and result interpretation

  • Peter J. Zed (a1) (a2) (a3), Brian H. Rowe (a4), Peter S. Loewen (a1) (a2) and Riyad B. Abu-Laban (a3) (a5)
Abstract

Reviews of the medical literature have always been an important resource for physicians. Increasingly, qualitative and quantitative systematic reviews (SRs) have replaced the traditional “narrative review” as a means of capturing and summarizing current evidence on a topic or, when possible, answering a specific clinical question. This paper is Part II of a 2-part series designed to provide emergency physicians with the background necessary to locate, critically evaluate and interpret SRs. The paper expands on the critical appraisal principles discussed in Part I by focusing on quality assessment, data synthesis and interpretation of results. To illustrate key points and facilitate readability, examples from the emergency medicine literature have been included and technical details have been kept to a minimum. The references, however, are comprehensive and provide a resource for readers seeking further information.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Systematic reviews in emergency medicine: Part II. Critical appraisal of review quality, data synthesis and result interpretation
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Systematic reviews in emergency medicine: Part II. Critical appraisal of review quality, data synthesis and result interpretation
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Systematic reviews in emergency medicine: Part II. Critical appraisal of review quality, data synthesis and result interpretation
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
CSU Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vancouver General Hospital, 855 West 12th Ave., Vancouver BC V5Z 1M9; 604 875-4077, fax 604 875-5267, zed@interchange.ubc.ca
References
Hide All
1.Zed, PJ, Rowe, BH, Loewen, PS, Abu-Laban, RB.Systematic reviews in emergency medicine: Part I. Background and general principles for locating and critically appraising reviews. Can J Emerg Med 2003;5(5):3315.
2.Kelly, KD, Travers, A, Dorgan, M, Slater, L, Rowe, BH.Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med 2001;38:51826.
3.Meade, MO, Richardson, S.Selecting and appraising studies for systematic review. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:5317.
4.Moher, D, Pham, B, Jones, A, Cook, DJ, Jadad, AR, Moher, M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:60913.
5.Moher, D, Cook, DJ, Eastwood, S, Olkin, I, Rennie, D, Stroup, DF.Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896900.
6.Jadad, AR, Moore, RA, Carroll, D, Jenkinson, C, Reynolds, DJ, Gavaghan, DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:112.
7.Clark, HD, Wells, GA, Huet, C, McAlister, FA, Salmi, LR, Fergusson, D, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials 1999;20:44852.
8.Rowe, BH, Bretzlaff, JA, Bourdon, C, Bota, GW, Camargo, CA Jr. Intravenous magnesium sulfate treatment for acute asthma in the emergency department: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Emerg Med 2000;36:18190.
9.van den Belt, AGM, Prins, MH, Lensing, AWA, Castro, AA, Clark, OAC, Atallah, AN, et al. Fixed dose subcutaneous low molecular weight heparins versus adjusted dose unfractionated heparin for venous thromboembolism [Cochrane review]. In: The Cochrane Library; Issue 2, 2001. Oxford: Update Software.
10.Rowe, BH, Spooner, CH, Ducharme, FM, Bretzlaff, JA, Bota, GW.Early emergency department treatment of acute asthma with systemic corticosteroids [Cochrane review]. In: The Cochrane Library; Issue 2, 2000. Oxford: Update Software.
11.Clarke, M, Oxman, AD, editors. Cochrane reviewers’ handbook 4.1.6 [updated Jan 2003]. In: The Cochrane Library; Issue 1, 2003. Oxford: Update Software. Updated quarterly.
12.Worster, A, Rowe, BH.Measures of association: an overview with examples from Canadian emergency medicine research. Can J Emerg Med 2001;3(3):21923.
13.Rowe, BH, Spooner, CH, Ducharme, FM, Bretzlaff, JA, Bota, GW.Corticosteroids for preventing relapse following acute exacerbations of asthma [Cochrane review]. In: The Cochrane Library; Issue 1, 2003. Oxford: Update Software.
14.Oxman, AD, Guyatt, GH.A consumer’s guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:7884.
15.Moher, D, Schultz, KF, Altman, DG.The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:11914.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 1481-8035
  • URL: /core/journals/canadian-journal-of-emergency-medicine
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 22 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 153 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd September 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.