This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
Systematic reviews involve the application of scientific methods to reduce bias in review of literature. The key components of a systematic review are a well-defined research question, comprehensive literature search to identify all studies that potentially address the question, systematic assembly of the studies that answer the question, critical appraisal of the methodological quality of the included studies, data extraction and analysis (with and without statistics), and considerations towards applicability of the evidence generated in a systematic review. These key features can be remembered as six ‘A’; Ask, Access, Assimilate, Appraise, Analyze and Apply. Meta-analysis is a statistical tool that provides pooled estimates of effect from the data extracted from individual studies in the systematic review. The graphical output of meta-analysis is a forest plot which provides information on individual studies and the pooled effect. Systematic reviews of literature can be undertaken for all types of questions, and all types of study designs. This article highlights the key features of systematic reviews, and is designed to help readers understand and interpret them. It can also help to serve as a beginner’s guide for both users and producers of systematic reviews and to appreciate some of the methodological issues.
Keywords: Forest plot, Pooled estimates, Risk of bias, Secondary researchNote
Additional material related to this paper is available with the online version at www.indianpediatrics.net
1. Sackett D, Strauss S, Richardson W, et al. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. Churchill Livingstone: 2000.
2. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 126 :376–80. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. PennState Eberley College of Science. Lesson 4: Bias and Random Error. Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat509/node/26/
4. Comprehensive Meta-analysis. Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: https://www.meta-analysis.com/pages/why_do.php?cart=
5. National Institute for Health Research. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: https://utas.libguides.com/SystematicReviews/Protocol
6. Mathew JL, Singh M. Evidence based child health: Fly but with feet on the ground! Indian Pediatr. 2008; 45 :95–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Virginia Commonwealth University. How to conduct a literature review (Health Sciences). Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/health-sciences-lit-review/question
9. Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research. 2012; 22 :1435–43. doi: 10.1177/1049732312452938. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, et al. Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within quali-tative evidence synthesis. Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: https://library.nd.edu.au/evidencebasedpractice/ask/question [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Infolibrarian. Bibliographic databases. Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: http://infolibrarian.com/edb.html
12. E-Resources for China Studies. Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: http://www.wanfangdata.com
13. LILACS, health information from Latin America and the Caribbean countries. Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: https://lilacs.bvsalud.org/en/
14. OpenGrey. System for information on grey literature in Europe. Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: http://www.opengrey.eu
15. Sterne JAC, Savoviæ J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019; 366 :14898. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies in meta-analyses. Accessed October 02, 2020. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical-epidemiology/oxford.asp
18. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010; 25 :603–5. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016; 355 :i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. OHAT Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies. Accessed February 27, 2021. Available from: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/pubs/riskofbiastool_508.pdf
22. Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, De Vries RB, et al. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Meth. 2014; 14 :1–9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-43. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Cochrane Methods. About IPD meta-analyses. Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: https://methods.cochrane.org/ipdma/about-ipd-meta-analyses
24. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Rothstein H. Meta-analysis. Fixed effect vs. random effects. Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: https://www.meta-analysis.com/downloads/M-a_f_ejv_r_e_sv.pdf
25. Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis. Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: https://www.statsdirect.com/help/meta_analysis/heterogeneity.htm
26. Dalton JE, Bolen SD, Mascha EJ. Publication bias: The elephant in the review. Anesth Analg. 2016; 123 :812–3. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001596. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994; 50 :1088–101. doi: 10.2307/2533446. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997; 315 :629–34. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot—based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in metaanalysis. Biometrics. 2000; 56 :455–63. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psycholog Bulletin. 1979; 86 :638–41. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Schünemann HJ, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, et al. Chapter 14: Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: www.training.coachrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-14
32. Drucker AM, Fleming P, Chan AW. Research techniques made simple: Assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews. J Invest Dermatol. 2016; 136 :e109–e14. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2016.08.021. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Accessed October 01, 2020. Available from: http://www.prisma-statement.org
34. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6 :e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]