COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology
To our knowledge, no publication providing overarching guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology exists. Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies of Etiology (COSMOS-E) provides guidance on all steps in systematic reviews of ob...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PLoS medicine 2019-02, Vol.16 (2), p.e1002742-e1002742 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e1002742 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | e1002742 |
| container_title | PLoS medicine |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Dekkers, Olaf M Vandenbroucke, Jan P Cevallos, Myriam Renehan, Andrew G Altman, Douglas G Egger, Matthias |
| description | To our knowledge, no publication providing overarching guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology exists.
Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies of Etiology (COSMOS-E) provides guidance on all steps in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, from shaping the research question, defining exposure and outcomes, to assessing the risk of bias and statistical analysis. The writing group included researchers experienced in meta-analyses and observational studies of etiology. Standard peer-review was performed. While the structure of systematic reviews of observational studies on etiology may be similar to that for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there are specific tasks within each component that differ. Examples include assessment for confounding, selection bias, and information bias. In systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, combining studies in meta-analysis may lead to more precise estimates, but such greater precision does not automatically remedy potential bias. Thorough exploration of sources of heterogeneity is key when assessing the validity of estimates and causality.
As many reviews of observational studies on etiology are being performed, this document may provide researchers with guidance on how to conduct and analyse such reviews. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2252249329</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A576572608</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_c63ca16d26a942d4b91c5ef771e89b35</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A576572608</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c764t-902b4b8b5730b000f62a68bf0fc57bd84f829e7cda5266b7e71d7d6685981dec3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVk02P0zAQhiMEYpeFf4AgEhKCQ4rtJP7ggLSqlqXSQiUKXC3HnqSpUrsbJ4X-e1yaXTWoB7APtsbPvJ7xeKLoOUYTnDL8buX61qpmslmDmWCECMvIg-gc55lIMGX04dH-LHri_SowAgn0ODpLEeOCC3Ierabzxef5Irl6H1_3tVFWQ-xsrJ01ve5qW8V-5ztYq67WcQvbGn76WFkTr6FTiQoB7Dz42JWxKzy028C5YIx915v6cADB1Lhq9zR6VKrGw7NhvYi-f7z6Nv2U3MyvZ9PLm0QzmnWJQKTICl7kLEUFQqikRFFelKjUOSsMz0pOBDBtVE4oLRgwbJihlOeCYwM6vYheHnQ3jfNyeCYvCckJyURKRCBmB8I4tZKbtl6rdiedquUfg2srqdqQcANS01QrTA2hSmTEZIXAOoeSMQxcFGketD4Mt_VFqIQG27WqGYmOT2y9lJXbSprylNO9wJtBoHW3PfhOrmuvoWmUBdeHuDHPwyAIBfTVX-jp7AaqUiGB2pYu3Kv3ovIyZzRnhCIeqOQEVYGFEKSzUNbBPOInJ_gwDaxrfdLh7cghMB386irVey9ni6__wX75d3b-Y8y-PmKXoJpu6V3T7z-pH4PZAdSt876F8r6AGMl9u929tNy3mxzaLbi9OC7-vdNdf6W_AaE1JAc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2252249329</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology</title><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PMC (PubMed Central)</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Dekkers, Olaf M ; Vandenbroucke, Jan P ; Cevallos, Myriam ; Renehan, Andrew G ; Altman, Douglas G ; Egger, Matthias</creator><creatorcontrib>Dekkers, Olaf M ; Vandenbroucke, Jan P ; Cevallos, Myriam ; Renehan, Andrew G ; Altman, Douglas G ; Egger, Matthias</creatorcontrib><description>To our knowledge, no publication providing overarching guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology exists.
Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies of Etiology (COSMOS-E) provides guidance on all steps in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, from shaping the research question, defining exposure and outcomes, to assessing the risk of bias and statistical analysis. The writing group included researchers experienced in meta-analyses and observational studies of etiology. Standard peer-review was performed. While the structure of systematic reviews of observational studies on etiology may be similar to that for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there are specific tasks within each component that differ. Examples include assessment for confounding, selection bias, and information bias. In systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, combining studies in meta-analysis may lead to more precise estimates, but such greater precision does not automatically remedy potential bias. Thorough exploration of sources of heterogeneity is key when assessing the validity of estimates and causality.
As many reviews of observational studies on etiology are being performed, this document may provide researchers with guidance on how to conduct and analyse such reviews.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1549-1676</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1549-1277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1549-1676</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30789892</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Bias ; Cardiovascular disease ; Clinical trials ; Cognitive biases ; Cohort analysis ; Cosmos ; Epidemiology ; Etiology ; Etiology (Medicine) ; Guidelines and Guidance ; Health risk assessment ; Heterogeneity ; Humans ; Information systems ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Observational studies ; Observational Studies as Topic - methods ; Observational Studies as Topic - standards ; Physical Sciences ; Preventive medicine ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Reviews ; Selection Bias ; Statistical analysis ; Studies ; Systematic review ; Systematic Reviews as Topic</subject><ispartof>PLoS medicine, 2019-02, Vol.16 (2), p.e1002742-e1002742</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2019 Dekkers et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2019 Dekkers et al 2019 Dekkers et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c764t-902b4b8b5730b000f62a68bf0fc57bd84f829e7cda5266b7e71d7d6685981dec3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c764t-902b4b8b5730b000f62a68bf0fc57bd84f829e7cda5266b7e71d7d6685981dec3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7462-5132 ; 0000-0002-1333-7580 ; 0000-0002-9115-4405</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6383865/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6383865/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79569,79570</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30789892$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dekkers, Olaf M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vandenbroucke, Jan P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cevallos, Myriam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renehan, Andrew G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Altman, Douglas G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Egger, Matthias</creatorcontrib><title>COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology</title><title>PLoS medicine</title><addtitle>PLoS Med</addtitle><description>To our knowledge, no publication providing overarching guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology exists.
Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies of Etiology (COSMOS-E) provides guidance on all steps in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, from shaping the research question, defining exposure and outcomes, to assessing the risk of bias and statistical analysis. The writing group included researchers experienced in meta-analyses and observational studies of etiology. Standard peer-review was performed. While the structure of systematic reviews of observational studies on etiology may be similar to that for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there are specific tasks within each component that differ. Examples include assessment for confounding, selection bias, and information bias. In systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, combining studies in meta-analysis may lead to more precise estimates, but such greater precision does not automatically remedy potential bias. Thorough exploration of sources of heterogeneity is key when assessing the validity of estimates and causality.
As many reviews of observational studies on etiology are being performed, this document may provide researchers with guidance on how to conduct and analyse such reviews.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Cardiovascular disease</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Cognitive biases</subject><subject>Cohort analysis</subject><subject>Cosmos</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Etiology</subject><subject>Etiology (Medicine)</subject><subject>Guidelines and Guidance</subject><subject>Health risk assessment</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information systems</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Meta-Analysis as Topic</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Observational Studies as Topic - methods</subject><subject>Observational Studies as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Preventive medicine</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Selection Bias</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Systematic Reviews as Topic</subject><issn>1549-1676</issn><issn>1549-1277</issn><issn>1549-1676</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqVk02P0zAQhiMEYpeFf4AgEhKCQ4rtJP7ggLSqlqXSQiUKXC3HnqSpUrsbJ4X-e1yaXTWoB7APtsbPvJ7xeKLoOUYTnDL8buX61qpmslmDmWCECMvIg-gc55lIMGX04dH-LHri_SowAgn0ODpLEeOCC3Ierabzxef5Irl6H1_3tVFWQ-xsrJ01ve5qW8V-5ztYq67WcQvbGn76WFkTr6FTiQoB7Dz42JWxKzy028C5YIx915v6cADB1Lhq9zR6VKrGw7NhvYi-f7z6Nv2U3MyvZ9PLm0QzmnWJQKTICl7kLEUFQqikRFFelKjUOSsMz0pOBDBtVE4oLRgwbJihlOeCYwM6vYheHnQ3jfNyeCYvCckJyURKRCBmB8I4tZKbtl6rdiedquUfg2srqdqQcANS01QrTA2hSmTEZIXAOoeSMQxcFGketD4Mt_VFqIQG27WqGYmOT2y9lJXbSprylNO9wJtBoHW3PfhOrmuvoWmUBdeHuDHPwyAIBfTVX-jp7AaqUiGB2pYu3Kv3ovIyZzRnhCIeqOQEVYGFEKSzUNbBPOInJ_gwDaxrfdLh7cghMB386irVey9ni6__wX75d3b-Y8y-PmKXoJpu6V3T7z-pH4PZAdSt876F8r6AGMl9u929tNy3mxzaLbi9OC7-vdNdf6W_AaE1JAc</recordid><startdate>20190221</startdate><enddate>20190221</enddate><creator>Dekkers, Olaf M</creator><creator>Vandenbroucke, Jan P</creator><creator>Cevallos, Myriam</creator><creator>Renehan, Andrew G</creator><creator>Altman, Douglas G</creator><creator>Egger, Matthias</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISN</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><scope>CZK</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7462-5132</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1333-7580</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9115-4405</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190221</creationdate><title>COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology</title><author>Dekkers, Olaf M ; Vandenbroucke, Jan P ; Cevallos, Myriam ; Renehan, Andrew G ; Altman, Douglas G ; Egger, Matthias</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c764t-902b4b8b5730b000f62a68bf0fc57bd84f829e7cda5266b7e71d7d6685981dec3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Cardiovascular disease</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Cognitive biases</topic><topic>Cohort analysis</topic><topic>Cosmos</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Etiology</topic><topic>Etiology (Medicine)</topic><topic>Guidelines and Guidance</topic><topic>Health risk assessment</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information systems</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Meta-Analysis as Topic</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Observational Studies as Topic - methods</topic><topic>Observational Studies as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Preventive medicine</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Selection Bias</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Systematic Reviews as Topic</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dekkers, Olaf M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vandenbroucke, Jan P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cevallos, Myriam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renehan, Andrew G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Altman, Douglas G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Egger, Matthias</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Opposing Viewpoints in Context (Gale)</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Canada</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><collection>PLoS Medicine</collection><jtitle>PLoS medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dekkers, Olaf M</au><au>Vandenbroucke, Jan P</au><au>Cevallos, Myriam</au><au>Renehan, Andrew G</au><au>Altman, Douglas G</au><au>Egger, Matthias</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology</atitle><jtitle>PLoS medicine</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS Med</addtitle><date>2019-02-21</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e1002742</spage><epage>e1002742</epage><pages>e1002742-e1002742</pages><issn>1549-1676</issn><issn>1549-1277</issn><eissn>1549-1676</eissn><abstract>To our knowledge, no publication providing overarching guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology exists.
Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies of Etiology (COSMOS-E) provides guidance on all steps in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, from shaping the research question, defining exposure and outcomes, to assessing the risk of bias and statistical analysis. The writing group included researchers experienced in meta-analyses and observational studies of etiology. Standard peer-review was performed. While the structure of systematic reviews of observational studies on etiology may be similar to that for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there are specific tasks within each component that differ. Examples include assessment for confounding, selection bias, and information bias. In systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, combining studies in meta-analysis may lead to more precise estimates, but such greater precision does not automatically remedy potential bias. Thorough exploration of sources of heterogeneity is key when assessing the validity of estimates and causality.
As many reviews of observational studies on etiology are being performed, this document may provide researchers with guidance on how to conduct and analyse such reviews.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>30789892</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7462-5132</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1333-7580</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9115-4405</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1549-1676 |
| ispartof | PLoS medicine, 2019-02, Vol.16 (2), p.e1002742-e1002742 |
| issn | 1549-1676 1549-1277 1549-1676 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2252249329 |
| source | Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; MEDLINE; PMC (PubMed Central); DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
| subjects | Analysis Bias Cardiovascular disease Clinical trials Cognitive biases Cohort analysis Cosmos Epidemiology Etiology Etiology (Medicine) Guidelines and Guidance Health risk assessment Heterogeneity Humans Information systems Medicine and Health Sciences Meta-Analysis as Topic Observational studies Observational Studies as Topic - methods Observational Studies as Topic - standards Physical Sciences Preventive medicine Research and Analysis Methods Reviews Selection Bias Statistical analysis Studies Systematic review Systematic Reviews as Topic |
| title | COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T07%3A17%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=COSMOS-E:%20Guidance%20on%20conducting%20systematic%20reviews%20and%20meta-analyses%20of%20observational%20studies%20of%20etiology&rft.jtitle=PLoS%20medicine&rft.au=Dekkers,%20Olaf%20M&rft.date=2019-02-21&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e1002742&rft.epage=e1002742&rft.pages=e1002742-e1002742&rft.issn=1549-1676&rft.eissn=1549-1676&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA576572608%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2252249329&rft_id=info:pmid/30789892&rft_galeid=A576572608&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_c63ca16d26a942d4b91c5ef771e89b35&rfr_iscdi=true |