CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationMethodologies in Health Research and Practice

Systematic Reviews and Cancer Research: a Suggested Stepwise Approach

Open access
Kelley, George A., Kelley, Kristi S.·2018·BMC Cancer
DOI 10.1186/s12885-018-4163-6PMC PMC5834879
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, play an important role today in synthesizing cancer research and are frequently used to guide decision-making. However, there is now an increase in the number of systematic reviews on the same topic, thereby necessitating a systematic review of previous systematic reviews. With a focus on cancer, the purpose of this article is to provide a practical, stepwise approach for systematically reviewing the literature and publishing the results. This starts with the registration of a protocol for a systematic review of previous systematic reviews and ends with the publication of an original or updated systematic review, with or without meta-analysis, in a peer-reviewed journal. Future directions as well as potential limitations of the approach are also discussed. It is hoped that the stepwise approach presented in this article will be helpful to both producers and consumers of cancer-related systematic reviews and will contribute to the ultimate goal of preventing and treating cancer.

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 · 10.1186/s12885-018-4163-6

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • Systematic reviews in cancer research mostly focus on clinical data with patients and not on research using in vitro or animal models of cancer.

    “However, these reviews mostly focus on clinical data with patients and not on research using in vitro or animal models of cancer (Kelley and Kelley, 2018).”

    From Sysrev: A FAIR Platform for Data Curation and Systematic Evidence Review (2021) · cites this paper as Kelley and Kelley, 2018

    The Background reports growth in cancer systematic reviews and gives an example involving adult cancer patients, but it does not compare the prevalence of patient-based reviews with reviews of in vitro or animal research. Searches for “in vitro,” “animal,” and a clinical-versus-laboratory comparison found no passage addressing that claim. No page number was provided for the Background passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 46

  1. [1]Davidoff F Haynes B Sackett D Smith R Evidence based medicine BMJ 1995 310 6987 1085 1086 10.1136/bmj.310.6987.1085 7742666 PMC2549494 · DOI
  2. [2]Sacks HS Berrier J Reitman D Ancona-Berk VA Chalmers TC Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials N Engl J Med 1987 316 450 455 10.1056/NEJM198702193160806 3807986 · DOI
  3. [4]Aromataris E Fernandez R Godfrey CM Holly C Khalil H Tungpunkom P Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015 13 3 132 140 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055 26360830 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [5]Ioannidis JPA The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses Milbank Q 2016 94 5 485 514 10.1111/1468-0009.12210 27620683 PMC5020151 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [6]Kelley GA Kelley KS Exercise and cancer-related fatigue in adults: a systematic review of previous systematic reviews with meta-analyses BMC Cancer 2017 17 1 693 10.1186/s12885-017-3687-5 29058631 PMC5651567 · DOI
  6. [8]Sarrami-Foroushani P Travaglia J Debono D Clay-Williams R Braithwaite J Scoping meta-review: introducing a new methodology Clin Transl Sci 2015 8 1 77 81 10.1111/cts.12188 25041546 PMC5350913 · DOI
  7. [11]Shamseer L Moher D Clarke M Ghersi D Liberati A Petticrew M Shekelle P Stewart LA Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation Br Med J 2015 349 g7647 10.1136/bmj.g7647 25555855 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [13]Higgins JP Thompson SG Spiegelhalter DJ A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis J R Stat Soc Series A 2009 172 1 137 159 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00552.x PMC2667312 19381330 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [14]Lau J Schmid CH Chalmers TC Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care: the Potsdam international consultation on meta-analysis J Clin Epidemiol 1995 48 1 45 57 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00106-Z 7853047 · DOI
  10. [15]Cohen J Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 1988 New York Academic Press
  11. [16]Durlak JA How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes J Pediatr Psychol 2009 34 9 917 928 10.1093/jpepsy/jsp004 19223279 · DOI
  12. [17]Kraemer HC Kupfer DJ Size of treatment effects and their importance to clinical research and practice Biol Psychiatry 2006 59 11 990 996 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.09.014 16368078 · DOI
  13. [19]Froud R Eldridge S Lall R Underwood M Estimating the number needed to treat from continuous outcomes in randomised controlled trials: methodological challenges and worked example using data from the UK back pain exercise and manipulation (BEAM) trial BMC Med Res Methodol 2009 9 35 10.1186/1471-2288-9-35 19519911 PMC2702335 · DOI
  14. [20]Furukawa TA Guyatt GH Griffith LE Can we individualize the 'number needed to treat'? An empirical study of summary effect measures in meta-analyses Int J Epidemiol 2002 31 1 72 76 10.1093/ije/31.1.72 11914297 · DOI · Paper page
  15. [21]Kelley GA Kelley KS Exercise and sleep: a systematic review of previous meta-analyses J Evid Based Med 2017 10 11 10.1111/jebm.12241 28276627 PMC5527334 · DOI
  16. [23]Shea BJ Grimshaw JM Wells GA Boers M Andersson N Hamel C Porter AC Tugwell P Moher D Bouter LM Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews BMC Med Res Methodol 2007 7 10 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 17302989 PMC1810543 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [24]Shea BJ Hamel C Wells GA Bouter LM Kristjansson E Grimshaw J Henry DA Boers M AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews J Clin Epidemiol 2009 62 10 1013 1020 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009 19230606 · DOI · Paper page
  18. [26]Guyatt G Oxman AD Akl EA Kunz R Vist G Brozek J Norris S Falck-Ytter Y Glasziou P DeBeer H GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables J Clin Epidemiol 2011 64 4 383 394 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 21195583 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [27]Balshem H Helfand M Schunemann HJ Oxman AD Kunz R Brozek J Vist GE Falck-Ytter Y Meerpohl J Norris S GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence J Clin Epidemiol 2011 64 4 401 406 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 21208779 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [28]Catala-Lopez F Tobias A Cameron C Moher D Hutton B Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction Rheumatol Int 2014 34 11 1489 1496 10.1007/s00296-014-2994-2 24691560 · DOI
  21. [31]Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Garritty C, Rader T, Moher D. Updating systematic reviews: Technical review No. 16. In. Rockville:Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007. 20734512
  22. [32]Garner P Hopewell S Chandler J MacLehose H Schunemann HJ Akl EA Beyene J Chang S Churchill R Dearness K When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist BMJ 2016 354 i3507 10.1136/bmj.i3507 27443385 PMC4955793 · DOI · Paper page
  23. [33]Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J Altman DG Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement PLoS Med 2009 6 7 e1000097 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 19621072 PMC2707599 · DOI · Paper page
  24. [34]Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J Altman DG Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement Ann Intern Med 2009 151 4 264 269 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 19622511 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [35]Moher D Liberati A Tetzlaff J Altman DG Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement BMJ 2009 339 b2535 10.1136/bmj.b2535 19622551 PMC2714657 · DOI · Paper page
  26. [36]Liberati A Altman DG Tetzlaff J Mulrow C Gotzsche PC Ioannidis JP Clarke M Devereaux PJ Kleijnen J Moher D The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration J Clin Epidemiol 2009 62 10 e1 34 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 19631507 · DOI · Paper page
  27. [37]Hutton B Salanti G Caldwell DM Chaimani A Schmid CH Cameron C Ioannidis JP Straus S Thorlund K Jansen JP The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations Ann Intern Med 2015 162 11 777 784 10.7326/M14-2385 26030634 · DOI · Paper page
  28. [38]Stewart LA Clarke M Rovers M Riley RD Simmonds M Stewart G Tierney JF Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement JAMA 2015 313 16 1657 1665 10.1001/jama.2015.3656 25919529 · DOI · Paper page
  29. [39]Steinberg KK Smith SJ Stroup DF Olkin I Lee NC Williamson GD Thacker SB Comparison of effect size estimates from a meta-analysis of summary data from published studies and from a meta-analysis using individual patient data for ovarian cancer studies Am J Epidemiol 1997 145 917 925 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009051 9149663 · DOI
  30. [40]Nevitt SJ Marson AG Davie B Reynolds S Williams L Smith CT Exploring changes over time and characteristics associated with data retrieval across individual participant data meta-analyses: systematic review BMJ 2017 357 j1390 10.1136/bmj.j1390 28381561 PMC5733815 · DOI
  31. [41]Rouse B Chaimani A Li TJ Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians Intern Emerg Med 2017 12 1 103 111 10.1007/s11739-016-1583-7 27913917 PMC5247317 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [42]Riley RD Jackson D Salanti G Burke DL Price M Kirkham J White IR Multivariate and network meta-analysis of multiple outcomes and multiple treatments: rationale, concepts, and examples Br Med J 2017 358 j3932 10.1136/bmj.j3932 28903924 PMC5596393 · DOI
  33. [43]Madden LV Piepho HP Paul PA Statistical models and methods for network meta-analysis Phytopathology 2016 106 8 792 806 10.1094/PHYTO-12-15-0342-RVW 27111798 · DOI
  34. [44]Zhang J Carlin BP Neaton JD Soon GG Nie L Kane R Virnig BA Chu HT Network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials: reporting the proper summaries Clin Trials 2014 11 2 246 262 10.1177/1740774513498322 24096635 PMC3972291 · DOI
  35. [45]Otte JL Carpenter JS Manchanda S Rand KL Skaar TC Weaver M Chernyak Y Zhong X Igega C Landis C Systematic review of sleep disorders in cancer patients: can the prevalence of sleep disorders be ascertained? Cancer Med 2015 4 2 183 200 10.1002/cam4.356 25449319 PMC4329003 · DOI
  36. [47]Efthimiou O Mavridis D Riley RD Cipriani A Salanti G Joint synthesis of multiple correlated outcomes in networks of interventions Biostat 2015 16 1 84 97 10.1093/biostatistics/kxu030 PMC4481542 24992934 · DOI
  37. [48]Efthimiou O Mavridis D Cipriani A Leucht S Bagos P Salanti G An approach for modelling multiple correlated outcomes in a network of interventions using odds ratios Stat Med 2014 33 13 2275 2287 10.1002/sim.6117 24918246 · DOI
  38. [49]Hong H Carlin BP Shamliyan TA Wyman JF Ramakrishnan R Fo S Kane RL Comparing bayesian and frequentist approaches for multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons Med Decis Mak 2013 33 5 702 714 10.1177/0272989X13481110 23549384 · DOI
  39. [50]Hong H Chu H Zhang J Carlin BP A Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons Res Synth Methods 2016 7 1 6 22 10.1002/jrsm.1153 26536149 PMC4779385 · DOI
  40. [51]Jackson D, Bujkiewicz S, Law M, Riley RD, White IR. A matrix-based method of moments for fitting multivariate network meta-analysis models with multiple outcomes and random inconsistency effects. Biometrics. 2017. epub ahead of print. PMC6038911 28806485
  41. [52]Kavvoura FK Ioannidis JP Methods for meta-analysis in genetic association studies: a review of their potential and pitfalls Hum Genet 2008 123 1 1 14 10.1007/s00439-007-0445-9 18026754 · DOI
  42. [53]Lee YH Meta-analysis of genetic association studies Ann Lab Med 2015 35 3 283 287 10.3343/alm.2015.35.3.283 25932435 PMC4390695 · DOI
  43. [54]Munafo MR Flint J Meta-analysis of genetic association studies Trends Genet 2004 20 9 439 444 10.1016/j.tig.2004.06.014 15313553 · DOI
  44. [55]Evangelou E Ioannidis JPA Meta-analysis methods for genome-wide association studies and beyond Nat Rev Genet 2013 14 6 379 389 10.1038/nrg3472 23657481 · DOI · Paper page
  45. [56]Nakaoka H Inoue I Meta-analysis of genetic association studies: methodologies, between-study heterogeneity and winner's curse J Hum Genet 2009 54 615 10.1038/jhg.2009.95 19851339 · DOI · Paper page
  46. [57]Salanti G Sanderson S Higgins J Obstacles and opportunities in meta-analysis of genetic association studies Genet Med 2005 7 1 13 20 10.1097/01.GIM.0000151839.12032.1A 15654223 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kelley, G. A., & Kelley, K. S.
Affiliations
West Virginia University (US)
Corresponding author
Kelley, George A.
ORCID
Venue
BMC Cancer
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-03-02
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
246-246
ISSN
1471-2407 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12885-018-4163-6
PMC
PMC5834879
OpenAlex
W2795848469
Cited by
13
References
9
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4
FWCI
0.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
Keywords
systematic reviews, meta-analysis, cancer research, umbrella review, evidence synthesis
MeSH terms
Humans, Neoplasms, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Peer Review, Research, 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