Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in rheumatology: a gentle introduction for clinicians
Abstract
Given the plethora of studies today on the same topic, clinicians in rheumatology as well as others increasingly rely on systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, to aid in their evidence-based decision-making. However, given time constraints, staying up-to-date on current methods for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as interpreting the results of these reviews for application in clinical practice can be challenging. The purpose of this paper is to try and address this gap. In this paper, a description of the different types of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is provided as well as a description of the major elements, including methodology and interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Included is a broad, five-question checklist to aid clinicians in rheumatology for making decisions about the utility of a systematic review. It is the hopes that this paper will aid clinicians in rheumatology as well as other consumers of systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the information necessary for judging the utility of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in their own work.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
To reduce bias in the literature search, the authors selected three trusted databases: ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus.
“To reduce bias in the literature search, we followed standard practices by selecting three trusted databases, ERIC, Web of Science and Scopus.”
From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Kelley & Kelley, 2019
Cites
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565 · see citing works
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305 · see citing works
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329 · see citing works
Bramer, W. M., Rethlefsen, M. L., Kleijnen, J., & Franco, O. H. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y · Cited by 2,114 · see citing works
Burnham, J. F. (2006) · Biomedical Digital Libraries · doi:10.1186/1742-5581-3-1 · Cited by 1,287 · see citing works
Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting
Page, M. J., Shamseer, L., & Tricco, A. C. (2018) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0699-4 · Cited by 509 · see citing works
Cooper, H., & Patall, E. A. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0015565 · Cited by 339 · see citing works
Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials II: The quality effects model
Doi, S. A. R., Barendregt, J. J., Khan, S., Thalib, L., & Williams, G. M. (2015) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2015.05.010 · Cited by 227 · see citing works
Clarke, M., Brice, A., & Chalmers, I. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102670 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Muneer, S., Santhosh, M., Parangusan, H., & Bhadra, J. (2026) · International Journal of Technology and Design Education · doi:10.1007/s10798-025-10005-2 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kelley, G. A., & Kelley, K. S.
- Affiliations
- West Virginia University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kelley, George A.
- Venue
- Clinical Rheumatology
- Published
- 2019-05-17
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2029-2038
- ISSN
- 0770-3198 (ISSN-L)
- 1434-9949
- OpenAlex
- W2945297559
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Rheumatology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- systematic reviews, meta-analysis, rheumatology, evidence-based medicine, clinical decision-making, review methodology
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Decision Making, Humans, Publications, Rheumatology, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine
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
