Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 3: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials

In recent years, progress and innovations in healthcare are measured by evidence-based medicine (EBM), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, "the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Pain physician 2009-01, Vol.12 (1), p.35-42
Hauptverfasser: Manchikanti, Laxmaiah, Benyamin, Ramsin M, Helm, Standiford, Hirsch, Joshua A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 42
container_issue 1
container_start_page 35
container_title Pain physician
container_volume 12
creator Manchikanti, Laxmaiah
Benyamin, Ramsin M
Helm, Standiford
Hirsch, Joshua A
description In recent years, progress and innovations in healthcare are measured by evidence-based medicine (EBM), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, "the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic." In contrast, meta-analysis is the statistical pooling of data across studies to generate pooled estimates of effects. Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggest that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to interpret the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the subject matter is crucial, expertise in review methods is also particularly important. Despite an explosion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the empiric research on the quality of systematic reviews has shown that not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, having highly variable quality, deficiencies in methodologic assessment of the quality of the included manuscripts, and bias. Even then, systematic review of the literature is currently the best, least biased and most rational way to organize, cull, evaluate, and integrate the research evidence from among the expanding medical and healthcare literature. However, a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence continues to persist in part because multiple instruments are available to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Steps in conducting systematic reviews include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement provides a checklist and a flow diagram. The checklist describes the preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of the report of an analysis. This review describes various aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials with a special focus on interventional pain management.
doi_str_mv 10.36076/ppj.2009/12/35
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66845751</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2656007721</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-26ad7b60293ff05792e85eee54db8504c604a4ba4136b7ba468f2e448011f6ac3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkc1LHEEQxZtgiBv17C00CDk5bn_PtDcRkwhCLnpuemZqpJf5SnfPyvrX5E9NqQtCEAoePH71qOIRcsrZhTSsNOt53lwIxuyai7XUn8hKcM0KzpU9ICuupSwk1_aQfE1pw5g01sov5JBbbrSw5Yr8vdmGFsYGitonaOkAbWjCCOc07VKGwefQ0AjbAE_pnPqxpY8LLvSIJBpGnAxxC2MO0-h7Onv0Bj_6RxjQvEQjZiovP0h7DRsg-wLxfpcwb-poRHcawjOekmPwfTomnzsUONnrEXn4cXN__au4-_3z9vrqrmikUbkQxrdlbZiwsuuYLq2ASgOAVm1daaYaw5RXtVdcmrpENVUnQKmKcd4Z38gj8v0td47TnwVSdkNIDfS9H2FakjOmUrrUHMGz_8DNtER8ITlhtGGsLMULtX6jmjilFKFzcwyDjzvHmXutzmF17qU6x4WTGje-7XOXGlt45_ddyX_3BZfC</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2656007721</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 3: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Manchikanti, Laxmaiah ; Benyamin, Ramsin M ; Helm, Standiford ; Hirsch, Joshua A</creator><creatorcontrib>Manchikanti, Laxmaiah ; Benyamin, Ramsin M ; Helm, Standiford ; Hirsch, Joshua A</creatorcontrib><description>In recent years, progress and innovations in healthcare are measured by evidence-based medicine (EBM), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, "the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic." In contrast, meta-analysis is the statistical pooling of data across studies to generate pooled estimates of effects. Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggest that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to interpret the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the subject matter is crucial, expertise in review methods is also particularly important. Despite an explosion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the empiric research on the quality of systematic reviews has shown that not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, having highly variable quality, deficiencies in methodologic assessment of the quality of the included manuscripts, and bias. Even then, systematic review of the literature is currently the best, least biased and most rational way to organize, cull, evaluate, and integrate the research evidence from among the expanding medical and healthcare literature. However, a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence continues to persist in part because multiple instruments are available to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Steps in conducting systematic reviews include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement provides a checklist and a flow diagram. The checklist describes the preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of the report of an analysis. This review describes various aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials with a special focus on interventional pain management.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1533-3159</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2150-1149</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.36076/ppj.2009/12/35</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19165297</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Society of Interventional Pain Physician</publisher><subject>Bias ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Humans ; Meta-analysis ; Pain Management ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Pain physician, 2009-01, Vol.12 (1), p.35-42</ispartof><rights>2009. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-26ad7b60293ff05792e85eee54db8504c604a4ba4136b7ba468f2e448011f6ac3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19165297$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Manchikanti, Laxmaiah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benyamin, Ramsin M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Helm, Standiford</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hirsch, Joshua A</creatorcontrib><title>Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 3: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials</title><title>Pain physician</title><addtitle>Pain Physician</addtitle><description>In recent years, progress and innovations in healthcare are measured by evidence-based medicine (EBM), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, "the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic." In contrast, meta-analysis is the statistical pooling of data across studies to generate pooled estimates of effects. Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggest that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to interpret the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the subject matter is crucial, expertise in review methods is also particularly important. Despite an explosion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the empiric research on the quality of systematic reviews has shown that not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, having highly variable quality, deficiencies in methodologic assessment of the quality of the included manuscripts, and bias. Even then, systematic review of the literature is currently the best, least biased and most rational way to organize, cull, evaluate, and integrate the research evidence from among the expanding medical and healthcare literature. However, a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence continues to persist in part because multiple instruments are available to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Steps in conducting systematic reviews include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement provides a checklist and a flow diagram. The checklist describes the preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of the report of an analysis. This review describes various aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials with a special focus on interventional pain management.</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Pain Management</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>1533-3159</issn><issn>2150-1149</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNptkc1LHEEQxZtgiBv17C00CDk5bn_PtDcRkwhCLnpuemZqpJf5SnfPyvrX5E9NqQtCEAoePH71qOIRcsrZhTSsNOt53lwIxuyai7XUn8hKcM0KzpU9ICuupSwk1_aQfE1pw5g01sov5JBbbrSw5Yr8vdmGFsYGitonaOkAbWjCCOc07VKGwefQ0AjbAE_pnPqxpY8LLvSIJBpGnAxxC2MO0-h7Onv0Bj_6RxjQvEQjZiovP0h7DRsg-wLxfpcwb-poRHcawjOekmPwfTomnzsUONnrEXn4cXN__au4-_3z9vrqrmikUbkQxrdlbZiwsuuYLq2ASgOAVm1daaYaw5RXtVdcmrpENVUnQKmKcd4Z38gj8v0td47TnwVSdkNIDfS9H2FakjOmUrrUHMGz_8DNtER8ITlhtGGsLMULtX6jmjilFKFzcwyDjzvHmXutzmF17qU6x4WTGje-7XOXGlt45_ddyX_3BZfC</recordid><startdate>20090101</startdate><enddate>20090101</enddate><creator>Manchikanti, Laxmaiah</creator><creator>Benyamin, Ramsin M</creator><creator>Helm, Standiford</creator><creator>Hirsch, Joshua A</creator><general>American Society of Interventional Pain Physician</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>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</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>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090101</creationdate><title>Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 3: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials</title><author>Manchikanti, Laxmaiah ; Benyamin, Ramsin M ; Helm, Standiford ; Hirsch, Joshua A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-26ad7b60293ff05792e85eee54db8504c604a4ba4136b7ba468f2e448011f6ac3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Pain Management</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Manchikanti, Laxmaiah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benyamin, Ramsin M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Helm, Standiford</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hirsch, Joshua A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</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><jtitle>Pain physician</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Manchikanti, Laxmaiah</au><au>Benyamin, Ramsin M</au><au>Helm, Standiford</au><au>Hirsch, Joshua A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 3: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials</atitle><jtitle>Pain physician</jtitle><addtitle>Pain Physician</addtitle><date>2009-01-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>35</spage><epage>42</epage><pages>35-42</pages><issn>1533-3159</issn><eissn>2150-1149</eissn><abstract>In recent years, progress and innovations in healthcare are measured by evidence-based medicine (EBM), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, "the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic." In contrast, meta-analysis is the statistical pooling of data across studies to generate pooled estimates of effects. Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggest that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to interpret the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the subject matter is crucial, expertise in review methods is also particularly important. Despite an explosion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the empiric research on the quality of systematic reviews has shown that not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, having highly variable quality, deficiencies in methodologic assessment of the quality of the included manuscripts, and bias. Even then, systematic review of the literature is currently the best, least biased and most rational way to organize, cull, evaluate, and integrate the research evidence from among the expanding medical and healthcare literature. However, a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence continues to persist in part because multiple instruments are available to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Steps in conducting systematic reviews include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement provides a checklist and a flow diagram. The checklist describes the preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of the report of an analysis. This review describes various aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials with a special focus on interventional pain management.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Society of Interventional Pain Physician</pub><pmid>19165297</pmid><doi>10.36076/ppj.2009/12/35</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1533-3159
ispartof Pain physician, 2009-01, Vol.12 (1), p.35-42
issn 1533-3159
2150-1149
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66845751
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Bias
Evidence-Based Medicine
Humans
Meta-analysis
Pain Management
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Systematic review
title Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 3: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T04%3A12%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evidence-based%20medicine,%20systematic%20reviews,%20and%20guidelines%20in%20interventional%20pain%20management:%20part%203:%20systematic%20reviews%20and%20meta-analyses%20of%20randomized%20trials&rft.jtitle=Pain%20physician&rft.au=Manchikanti,%20Laxmaiah&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=35&rft.epage=42&rft.pages=35-42&rft.issn=1533-3159&rft.eissn=2150-1149&rft_id=info:doi/10.36076/ppj.2009/12/35&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2656007721%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2656007721&rft_id=info:pmid/19165297&rfr_iscdi=true