WHAT A PHARMACIST/PRACTITIONER SHOULD KNOW ABOUT EVALUATING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Trials/Studies of published systematic reviews/meta-analysis have shown little consistency and often poor quality in proper reporting, introducing potential errors and biases to the overall study results. As the pharmacy profession continues its quest for provider status to provide patient care services, it is pivotal for pharmacists to efficiently evaluate and interpret the quality of systematic reviews before applying the results to patient care. This review aims to educate pharmacists, practitioners, and students on how to evaluate systematic reviews in the context of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. An example is also provided to illustrate how to apply PRISMA in evaluating a published meta-analysis. As pharmacists become increasingly involved in medication optimization services within the patient care process, the ability to properly evaluate systematic reviews and the application of evidence-based medicine will be essential components in providing optimal patient care.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Journal of TCI is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, unless otherwise stated. Please read our Policies page for more information.
References
Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). Accreditation Standards and Key Elements for the Professional Program in Pharmacy Leading to the Doctor of Pharmacy Degree. (Standards 2016) 2015. Retrieved from https://www.acpe-accredit.org/pdf/Standards2016FINAL.pdf
Bryant PJ, McQueen CE, Van Dyke EA. 2014. Chapter 5: Literature Evaluation II: Beyond the Basics. In: Malone PM, Kier KL, Stanovich JE, Malone MJ. Drug Information: A Guide for Pharmacists. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill Education.
Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. 2011. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. 2013. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS ONE. 8(7):e66844.
Edwards P, Clarke M, Diguiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I, Wentz R. 2002. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med. 21(11):1635-40.
Green S, Higgins JPT. 2011. Chapter 2: Preparing a Cochrane Review. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. 2011. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. London, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration.
Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. 2011. Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. 2011. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Jørgensen AW, Hilden J, Gøtzche PG. 2006. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333: 782.
Jüni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, et al. 2002. Direction and Impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol. 31:115-23.
Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. 2011. Chapter 6: Searching for Studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 6(7):e1000100.
Medina MS, Plaza CM, Stowe CD, et al. 2013. Center for the Advancement of Pharmacy Education (CAPE) Educational Outcomes 2013 Retrieved from http://www.aacp.org/documents/CAPEoutcomes071213.pdf
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. 2007 Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 4(3):e78.
Niedziela J, Hudzik B, Niedziela N, et al. 2014. The obesity paradox in acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis. Eur J Epidemiol. 29:801-12.
OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. 2011. Retrieved from http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
Qi X, Yang M, Ren W, et al. 2013. Find duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Databases in systematic review. PLoS ONE. 8(8):e71838.
Schmidt FL, Oh I, Hayes TL. 2009. Fixed-versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: Model properties and an epirical comparison of differences in results. Brit J Math Stat Psy. 62:97-128.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. 2015. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 349:g7647.
Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. 2002. Publishing Protocols of Systematic Reviews Comparing What Was Done to What Was Planned. JAMA. 287(21):2831-4.
Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D. 2011. Chapter 10 Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connel D, et al. 2014. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.
Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, et al. 2008. The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. J Clin Epidemiol. 61(8):770-5.