How to Use a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Timothy Y. Tseng, Philipp Dahm, Rudolf W. Poolman, Glenn M. Preminger, Benjamin J. Canales, Victor Manuel Montori

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This article introduces practicing urologists to the critical appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to guide their evidence-based clinical practice. Materials and Methods: Using a urological clinical case scenario we introduce a 3-step process in evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses by considering 1) the validity of the review results, 2) what the results are, and 3) the extent to which the results can and should be applied to patient care. Results: A systematic review seeks to synthesize the medical literature about a specific clinical question using explicit methods to perform a comprehensive literature search, identify and select eligible studies, critically appraise their methods, and judiciously summarize the results considering how they vary with study characteristics. When this summary involves statistical methods, ie a meta-analysis, reviewers can offer a pooled estimate that will have greater precision and will apply more broadly than the individual studies. The quality of the underlying studies, the consistency of results across studies and the precision of the pooled estimate can considerably affect the strength of inference from systematic reviews. Conclusions: Valid systematic reviews of high quality studies can increase the confidence with which urologists and patients make evidence-based decisions. Thus, urologists need to recognize the inherent limitations, understand the results and apply them judiciously to patient care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1249-1256
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume180
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2008

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Patient Care
Evidence-Based Practice
Reproducibility of Results
Urologists

Keywords

  • evidence-based medicine
  • meta-analysis as topic
  • review literature as topic
  • urology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Tseng, T. Y., Dahm, P., Poolman, R. W., Preminger, G. M., Canales, B. J., & Montori, V. M. (2008). How to Use a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Urology, 180(4), 1249-1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.046

How to Use a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. / Tseng, Timothy Y.; Dahm, Philipp; Poolman, Rudolf W.; Preminger, Glenn M.; Canales, Benjamin J.; Montori, Victor Manuel.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 180, No. 4, 10.2008, p. 1249-1256.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tseng, TY, Dahm, P, Poolman, RW, Preminger, GM, Canales, BJ & Montori, VM 2008, 'How to Use a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis', Journal of Urology, vol. 180, no. 4, pp. 1249-1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.046
Tseng, Timothy Y. ; Dahm, Philipp ; Poolman, Rudolf W. ; Preminger, Glenn M. ; Canales, Benjamin J. ; Montori, Victor Manuel. / How to Use a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. In: Journal of Urology. 2008 ; Vol. 180, No. 4. pp. 1249-1256.
@article{92dc1c5cb5e542899e359b0e7fbe0b7c,
title = "How to Use a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis",
abstract = "Purpose: This article introduces practicing urologists to the critical appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to guide their evidence-based clinical practice. Materials and Methods: Using a urological clinical case scenario we introduce a 3-step process in evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses by considering 1) the validity of the review results, 2) what the results are, and 3) the extent to which the results can and should be applied to patient care. Results: A systematic review seeks to synthesize the medical literature about a specific clinical question using explicit methods to perform a comprehensive literature search, identify and select eligible studies, critically appraise their methods, and judiciously summarize the results considering how they vary with study characteristics. When this summary involves statistical methods, ie a meta-analysis, reviewers can offer a pooled estimate that will have greater precision and will apply more broadly than the individual studies. The quality of the underlying studies, the consistency of results across studies and the precision of the pooled estimate can considerably affect the strength of inference from systematic reviews. Conclusions: Valid systematic reviews of high quality studies can increase the confidence with which urologists and patients make evidence-based decisions. Thus, urologists need to recognize the inherent limitations, understand the results and apply them judiciously to patient care.",
keywords = "evidence-based medicine, meta-analysis as topic, review literature as topic, urology",
author = "Tseng, {Timothy Y.} and Philipp Dahm and Poolman, {Rudolf W.} and Preminger, {Glenn M.} and Canales, {Benjamin J.} and Montori, {Victor Manuel}",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.046",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "180",
pages = "1249--1256",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How to Use a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

AU - Tseng, Timothy Y.

AU - Dahm, Philipp

AU - Poolman, Rudolf W.

AU - Preminger, Glenn M.

AU - Canales, Benjamin J.

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

PY - 2008/10

Y1 - 2008/10

N2 - Purpose: This article introduces practicing urologists to the critical appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to guide their evidence-based clinical practice. Materials and Methods: Using a urological clinical case scenario we introduce a 3-step process in evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses by considering 1) the validity of the review results, 2) what the results are, and 3) the extent to which the results can and should be applied to patient care. Results: A systematic review seeks to synthesize the medical literature about a specific clinical question using explicit methods to perform a comprehensive literature search, identify and select eligible studies, critically appraise their methods, and judiciously summarize the results considering how they vary with study characteristics. When this summary involves statistical methods, ie a meta-analysis, reviewers can offer a pooled estimate that will have greater precision and will apply more broadly than the individual studies. The quality of the underlying studies, the consistency of results across studies and the precision of the pooled estimate can considerably affect the strength of inference from systematic reviews. Conclusions: Valid systematic reviews of high quality studies can increase the confidence with which urologists and patients make evidence-based decisions. Thus, urologists need to recognize the inherent limitations, understand the results and apply them judiciously to patient care.

AB - Purpose: This article introduces practicing urologists to the critical appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to guide their evidence-based clinical practice. Materials and Methods: Using a urological clinical case scenario we introduce a 3-step process in evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses by considering 1) the validity of the review results, 2) what the results are, and 3) the extent to which the results can and should be applied to patient care. Results: A systematic review seeks to synthesize the medical literature about a specific clinical question using explicit methods to perform a comprehensive literature search, identify and select eligible studies, critically appraise their methods, and judiciously summarize the results considering how they vary with study characteristics. When this summary involves statistical methods, ie a meta-analysis, reviewers can offer a pooled estimate that will have greater precision and will apply more broadly than the individual studies. The quality of the underlying studies, the consistency of results across studies and the precision of the pooled estimate can considerably affect the strength of inference from systematic reviews. Conclusions: Valid systematic reviews of high quality studies can increase the confidence with which urologists and patients make evidence-based decisions. Thus, urologists need to recognize the inherent limitations, understand the results and apply them judiciously to patient care.

KW - evidence-based medicine

KW - meta-analysis as topic

KW - review literature as topic

KW - urology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=50949107210&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=50949107210&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.046

DO - 10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.046

M3 - Article

C2 - 18707741

AN - SCOPUS:50949107210

VL - 180

SP - 1249

EP - 1256

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 4

ER -