A nephrology guide to reading and using systematic reviews of observational studies
Abstract
Systematic reviews are an ideal way of summarizing evidence from primary studies. While systematic reviews of randomized trials are broadly used to summarize benefits and harms of interventions, systematic reviews of observational studies are useful to summarize data on prevalence of risk factors in a population, distribution of outcomes or associations of different risk factors with outcomes. Also, systematic reviews can be useful to clarify potential reasons for conflicting data found in primary studies and explore sources of heterogeneity (variation in primary study data) to better understand epidemiological data and generate hypotheses for candidate interventions to improve outcomes. Summarizing data from observational studies in systematic reviews is a powerful tool to distil existing prognostic evidence in specific settings and inform patients and healthcare providers. In this article, we describe how to critically appraise the methods, interpret the results and apply the findings of a systematic review of observational (prognostic) studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Aspects frequently mentioned as important to address in the research question were the population, exposures or interventions, and outcomes.
“Aspects that were frequently mentioned as important to address were the population, exposures or interventions, and outcomes [38–41, 43, 47, 48, 50, 54].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [43]
Twenty articles (22%) gave recommendations on the key item "research question", with publication dates between 1997 and 2015 (median year 2009).
“Twenty articles (22%) gave recommendations on the key item “research question” [29, 30, 35, 36, 38–43, 45–54], with publication dates between 1997 and 2015 (median year of publication 2009).”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [43]
Thirty-three articles (35%) made recommendations about the key item "search strategy", with publication dates between 1995 and 2016 (median year 2007).
“Thirty-three articles (35%) made recommendations about the key item “search strategy” [12, 29, 30, 33–36, 38, 39, 43, 46–51, 53–69], with publication dates between 1995 and 2016 (median year of publication 2007).”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [43]
Nine articles (10%) made recommendations on how to perform data extraction, with publication dates between 1995 and 2016 (median year 2009).
“Nine articles (10%) made recommendations on how to perform data extraction [29, 33–35, 38, 43, 47, 48, 74], with publication dates between 1995 and 2016 (median year of publication 2009).”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [43]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [6]6. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC 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
- Authors
- Ravani, P., Ronksley, P. E., James, M. T., & Strippoli, G. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Calgary (CA)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Ravani, Pietro
- Venue
- Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-06-24
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1615-1621
- ISSN
- 0931-0509 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2385
- OpenAlex
- W1941127021
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Bari Aldo Moro) (submittedVersion)
- 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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- systematic reviews, observational studies, risk factors, heterogeneity, critical appraisal, interpretation of results, nephrology, evidence-based practice
- MeSH terms
- Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Nephrology, Risk Factors, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Renal Insufficiency, Chronic, Observational Studies as Topic
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
