Cited by 109Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Sciences Research and Education

Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people

Open access
Shenkin, Susan D., Harrison, Jennifer K., Wilkinson, Tim, Dodds, Richard M., Ioannidis, John P. A.·2017·Age and Ageing

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly common. This article aims to provide guidance for people conducting systematic reviews relevant to the healthcare of older people. An awareness of these issues will also help people reading systematic reviews to determine whether the results will influence their clinical practice. It is essential that systematic reviews are performed by a team which includes the required technical and clinical expertise. Those performing reviews for the first time should ensure they have appropriate training and support. They must be planned and performed in a transparent and methodologically robust way: guidelines are available. The protocol should be written-and if possible published-before starting the review. Geriatricians will be interested in a table of baseline characteristics, which will help to determine if the studied samples or populations are similar to their patients. Reviews of studies of older people should consider how they will manage issues such as different age cut-offs; non-specific presentations; multiple predictors and outcomes; potential biases and confounders. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may provide evidence to improve older people's care, or determine where new evidence is required. Newer methodologies, such as meta-analyses of individual level data, network meta-analyses and umbrella reviews, and realist synthesis, may improve the reliability and clinical utility of systematic reviews.

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 · 10.1093/ageing/afx105

Cites

27 of 27 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. The very long list of references supporting this review has meant that only the first 36 are listed here. The full list of references is available on the journal website http://www.ageing.oxfordjournals.org/ as Appendix.
  2. [10]Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M Systematic reviews of observational studies In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman D eds Systematic Reviews in Healthcare: Meta-Analysis in Context. London: WIley, 2008: pp. 211– 27.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shenkin, S. D., Harrison, J. K., Wilkinson, T., Dodds, R. M., & Ioannidis, J. P. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Alzheimer Scotland (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Shenkin, Susan D.
Venue
Age and Ageing
Published
2017-06-24
Volume
46
Issue
5
Pages
722-728
ISSN
  • 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2834
OpenAlex
W2718509272
Cited by
109
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Age and Ageing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Lifelong Health and Wellbeing Initiative (MR/L501530/1)
  • MRC Clinical Research Training (MR/P001823/1)
  • NIHR
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, older adults, elderly care, transparency, age cut-off, confounding, bias, network meta-analysis, umbrella review, realist synthesis, evidence-based care
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Geriatrics, Health Services for the Aged, Health Services Research, Humans, Middle Aged, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Biomedical Research

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