How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: Users' guides to the medical literature

Mohammad H Murad, Victor Manuel Montori, John P A Ioannidis, Roman Jaeschke, P. J. Devereaux, Kameshwar Prasad, Ignacio Neumann, Alonso Carrasco-Labra, Thomas Agoritsas, Rose Hatala, Maureen O. Meade, Peter Wyer, Deborah J. Cook, Gordon Guyatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

199 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Clinical decisions should be based on the totality of the best evidence and not the results of individual studies. When clinicians apply the results of a systematic review or meta-analysis to patient care, they should start by evaluating the credibility of the methods of the systematic review, ie, the extent to which these methods have likely protected against misleading results. Credibility depends on whether the review addressed a sensible clinical question; included an exhaustive literature search; demonstrated reproducibility of the selection and assessment of studies; and presented results in a useful manner. For reviews that are sufficiently credible, clinicians must decide on the degree of confidence in the estimates that the evidence warrants (quality of evidence). Confidence depends on the risk of bias in the body of evidence; the precision and consistency of the results; whether the results directly apply to the patient of interest; and the likelihood of reporting bias. Shared decision making requires understanding of the estimates ofmagnitude of beneficial and harmful effects, and confidence in those estimates.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)171-179
Number of pages9
JournalJAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
Volume312
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Patient Care
Decision Making

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care : Users' guides to the medical literature. / Murad, Mohammad H; Montori, Victor Manuel; Ioannidis, John P A; Jaeschke, Roman; Devereaux, P. J.; Prasad, Kameshwar; Neumann, Ignacio; Carrasco-Labra, Alonso; Agoritsas, Thomas; Hatala, Rose; Meade, Maureen O.; Wyer, Peter; Cook, Deborah J.; Guyatt, Gordon.

In: JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 312, No. 2, 2014, p. 171-179.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Murad, MH, Montori, VM, Ioannidis, JPA, Jaeschke, R, Devereaux, PJ, Prasad, K, Neumann, I, Carrasco-Labra, A, Agoritsas, T, Hatala, R, Meade, MO, Wyer, P, Cook, DJ & Guyatt, G 2014, 'How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: Users' guides to the medical literature', JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 312, no. 2, pp. 171-179. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.5559
Murad, Mohammad H ; Montori, Victor Manuel ; Ioannidis, John P A ; Jaeschke, Roman ; Devereaux, P. J. ; Prasad, Kameshwar ; Neumann, Ignacio ; Carrasco-Labra, Alonso ; Agoritsas, Thomas ; Hatala, Rose ; Meade, Maureen O. ; Wyer, Peter ; Cook, Deborah J. ; Guyatt, Gordon. / How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care : Users' guides to the medical literature. In: JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. 2014 ; Vol. 312, No. 2. pp. 171-179.
@article{0ce8d79688e84b1c91db83ec82d75d26,
title = "How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: Users' guides to the medical literature",
abstract = "Clinical decisions should be based on the totality of the best evidence and not the results of individual studies. When clinicians apply the results of a systematic review or meta-analysis to patient care, they should start by evaluating the credibility of the methods of the systematic review, ie, the extent to which these methods have likely protected against misleading results. Credibility depends on whether the review addressed a sensible clinical question; included an exhaustive literature search; demonstrated reproducibility of the selection and assessment of studies; and presented results in a useful manner. For reviews that are sufficiently credible, clinicians must decide on the degree of confidence in the estimates that the evidence warrants (quality of evidence). Confidence depends on the risk of bias in the body of evidence; the precision and consistency of the results; whether the results directly apply to the patient of interest; and the likelihood of reporting bias. Shared decision making requires understanding of the estimates ofmagnitude of beneficial and harmful effects, and confidence in those estimates.",
author = "Murad, {Mohammad H} and Montori, {Victor Manuel} and Ioannidis, {John P A} and Roman Jaeschke and Devereaux, {P. J.} and Kameshwar Prasad and Ignacio Neumann and Alonso Carrasco-Labra and Thomas Agoritsas and Rose Hatala and Meade, {Maureen O.} and Peter Wyer and Cook, {Deborah J.} and Gordon Guyatt",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1001/jama.2014.5559",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "312",
pages = "171--179",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0002-9955",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care

T2 - Users' guides to the medical literature

AU - Murad, Mohammad H

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

AU - Ioannidis, John P A

AU - Jaeschke, Roman

AU - Devereaux, P. J.

AU - Prasad, Kameshwar

AU - Neumann, Ignacio

AU - Carrasco-Labra, Alonso

AU - Agoritsas, Thomas

AU - Hatala, Rose

AU - Meade, Maureen O.

AU - Wyer, Peter

AU - Cook, Deborah J.

AU - Guyatt, Gordon

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Clinical decisions should be based on the totality of the best evidence and not the results of individual studies. When clinicians apply the results of a systematic review or meta-analysis to patient care, they should start by evaluating the credibility of the methods of the systematic review, ie, the extent to which these methods have likely protected against misleading results. Credibility depends on whether the review addressed a sensible clinical question; included an exhaustive literature search; demonstrated reproducibility of the selection and assessment of studies; and presented results in a useful manner. For reviews that are sufficiently credible, clinicians must decide on the degree of confidence in the estimates that the evidence warrants (quality of evidence). Confidence depends on the risk of bias in the body of evidence; the precision and consistency of the results; whether the results directly apply to the patient of interest; and the likelihood of reporting bias. Shared decision making requires understanding of the estimates ofmagnitude of beneficial and harmful effects, and confidence in those estimates.

AB - Clinical decisions should be based on the totality of the best evidence and not the results of individual studies. When clinicians apply the results of a systematic review or meta-analysis to patient care, they should start by evaluating the credibility of the methods of the systematic review, ie, the extent to which these methods have likely protected against misleading results. Credibility depends on whether the review addressed a sensible clinical question; included an exhaustive literature search; demonstrated reproducibility of the selection and assessment of studies; and presented results in a useful manner. For reviews that are sufficiently credible, clinicians must decide on the degree of confidence in the estimates that the evidence warrants (quality of evidence). Confidence depends on the risk of bias in the body of evidence; the precision and consistency of the results; whether the results directly apply to the patient of interest; and the likelihood of reporting bias. Shared decision making requires understanding of the estimates ofmagnitude of beneficial and harmful effects, and confidence in those estimates.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903897703&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84903897703&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jama.2014.5559

DO - 10.1001/jama.2014.5559

M3 - Article

C2 - 25005654

AN - SCOPUS:84903897703

VL - 312

SP - 171

EP - 179

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0002-9955

IS - 2

ER -