Cited by 121Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesClinical practice guidelines implementation

Not only randomized controlled trials, but also case series should be considered in systematic reviews of rapidly developing technologies

Chambers, Duncan, Rodgers, Mark, Woolacott, Nerys·2009·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective Case series can influence clinical practice but are often omitted from systematic reviews. We evaluated the contribution of case series to a systematic review of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF).Study design and setting Analysis of the results of a systematic review based on a search of 25 electronic databases and Internet sources.Results We included eight controlled trials and 53 case series. Case series provided most patients longest follow-up and data on adverse events and complications. Rates of freedom from arrhythmia were comparable between case series, RFCA arms of controlled trials, and a survey of RFCA centers.Conclusion In the case of RFCA for AF, the case series make a useful contribution to the systematic review. Inclusion of case series can increase the evidence base and strengthen the credibility of a review of an emerging health technology. These advantages must be balanced against the risk of bias associated with the lack of a control group, potential publication bias, overrepresentation of results from specialist centers, and overlap of patients across series. Specification in the review protocol of inclusion criteria for outcomes and quality criteria is recommended to make optimum use of case series.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.010

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Chambers, D., Rodgers, M., & Woolacott, N.
Affiliations
University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
Chambers, Duncan
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-12
Volume
62
Issue
12
Pages
1253-1260.e4
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995030115
Cited by
121
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
case series, systematic review methodology, radiofrequency catheter ablation, atrial fibrillation, emerging health technologies, evidence base, risk of bias, publication bias, arrhythmia recurrence, adverse events
MeSH terms
Atrial Fibrillation, Humans, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Review Literature as Topic, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Catheter Ablation, 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