Critical appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

IF 1.9 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-11 DOI:10.4103/ija.ija_1223_24
Kapil D Soni
{"title":"Critical appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.","authors":"Kapil D Soni","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_1223_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are cornerstone methodologies in evidence-based medicine, synthesising vast research to provide comprehensive insights. Despite their value, the increasing prevalence of SRMAs has highlighted the need for robust critical appraisal to ensure their reliability and applicability. This document outlines a structured framework for evaluating SRMAs, emphasising key elements such as clearly defined research questions, appropriate inclusion criteria, comprehensive search strategies and the assessment of bias in included studies. In addition, it discusses the importance of rigorous data extraction, synthesis methods and evaluation of publication bias. Tools like Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Measurement Tools to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) can facilitate appraisal and help translate findings into clinical practice. By identifying knowledge gaps and methodological strengths or weaknesses, critical appraisal enhances the quality of SRMAs and safeguards their role in guiding evidence-based decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":"69 1","pages":"161-164"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11878356/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_1223_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are cornerstone methodologies in evidence-based medicine, synthesising vast research to provide comprehensive insights. Despite their value, the increasing prevalence of SRMAs has highlighted the need for robust critical appraisal to ensure their reliability and applicability. This document outlines a structured framework for evaluating SRMAs, emphasising key elements such as clearly defined research questions, appropriate inclusion criteria, comprehensive search strategies and the assessment of bias in included studies. In addition, it discusses the importance of rigorous data extraction, synthesis methods and evaluation of publication bias. Tools like Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Measurement Tools to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) can facilitate appraisal and help translate findings into clinical practice. By identifying knowledge gaps and methodological strengths or weaknesses, critical appraisal enhances the quality of SRMAs and safeguards their role in guiding evidence-based decision-making.

对系统评价和荟萃分析的批判性评价。
系统评价和荟萃分析(srma)是循证医学的基础方法,它综合了大量的研究以提供全面的见解。尽管有其价值,但srma的日益普及突出了对其可靠性和适用性进行强有力的关键评估的必要性。本文件概述了评估srma的结构化框架,强调了诸如明确定义的研究问题、适当的纳入标准、全面的检索策略和纳入研究的偏倚评估等关键要素。此外,还讨论了严格的数据提取、综合方法和发表偏倚评估的重要性。诸如系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)、评估系统评价的测量工具、第2版和建议评估、发展和评估分级(GRADE)等工具可以促进评估并帮助将研究结果转化为临床实践。通过识别知识差距和方法优势或弱点,批判性评估提高了srma的质量,并保障了它们在指导循证决策方面的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
44.80%
发文量
210
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信