Cited by 109Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyClinical practice guidelines implementation

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis for the surgeon scientist

Mahid, S S, Hornung, C A, Minor, K S, Turina, M, Galandiuk, S·2006·British Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background: Understanding of data-reporting methods is imperative for correct interpretation of the medical literature as well as for proper performance of future clinical research. Recent developments in biostatistics have greatly changed the types of statistical analyses used and the minimum quality standards that must be maintained. Method: Different types of review are described, including systematic review with and without meta-analysis. Minimum reporting standards, sources of bias, both quantitative and qualitative, and references are discussed. Results and Conclusion: Meta-analysis has become a clearly defined technique, with reporting standards for both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. It is assuming a wider role in the surgical literature. Although many sources of bias exist, there are clear reporting standards and readers should be aware of these when studying the literature.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bjs.5596

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 5 Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 1998; 316 : 61-66.
  2. 29 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D et al . Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283 : 2008-2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mahid, S. S., Hornung, C. A., Minor, K. S., Turina, M., & Galandiuk, S.
Affiliations
University of Louisville (US)
Corresponding author
Galandiuk, S
Venue
British Journal of Surgery
Published
2006-10-23
Volume
93
Issue
11
Pages
1315-1324
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2061029780
Cited by
109
References
56
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
3.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British journal of surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
systematic reviews, meta-analysis, reporting guidelines, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, surgical research, biostatistics, literary interpretation
MeSH terms
Review Literature as Topic, Statistics as Topic, General Surgery, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Information Storage and Retrieval, Narration

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