Cited by 454Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

How to Read a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Apply the Results to Patient Care: Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature

Open access
Murad, Mohammad Hassan, Montori, Victor M., Ioannidis, John P. A., Jaeschke, Roman, Devereaux, P. J., Prasad, Kameshwar, Neumann, Ignacio, Carrasco-Labra, Alonso +6 more·2014·JAMA

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 of magnitude of beneficial and harmful effects, and confidence in those estimates.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2014.5559

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murad, M. H., Montori, V. M., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Jaeschke, R., Devereaux, P. J., Prasad, K., Neumann, I., Carrasco-Labra, A., Agoritsas, T., Hatala, R., Meade, M. O., Wyer, P., Cook, D. J., & Guyatt, G.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Population Health Research Institute (CA)
  • All India Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
  • Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL)
  • Evidence-Based Dentistry Unit, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • McMaster University Medical Centre (CA)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Venue
JAMA
Published
2014-07-09
Volume
312
Issue
2
Pages
171
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2129163850
Cited by
454
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 11
FWCI
45.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Universidad de Chile (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
systematic reviews, meta-analysis, evidence-based medicine, credibility assessment, quality of evidence, risk of bias, reporting bias, shared decision-making, patient care
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Decision Making, Patient Care, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Evidence-Based Practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review