Track topics on Twitter Track topics that are important to you
A systematic review aims to answer a focussed research question through a structured review of the evidence, using a predefined methodology, which often includes a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a statistical method used to combine the effect estimates from the individual studies included in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are positioned at the highest level in the hierarchy of clinical evidence. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was introduced in 2009 to help authors improve the quality and reliability of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Recently, the volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of Endodontology has increased; however, the quality of the published manuscripts has been reported to be sub-optimal, which does not take account of the systematic reviews that were rejected because of more obvious deficiencies. The aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive glossary of terminology commonly used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in an attempt to provide easily understood definitions and explanations to assist authors when reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and to allow those wishing to read them to become better informed.
This article was published in the following journal.
Name: International endodontic journal
Given the plethora of studies today on the same topic, clinicians in rheumatology as well as others increasingly rely on systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, to aid in their evidence-bas...
There has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials investigating thresholds for red blood cell transfusion. To systematically c...
The journal Social Science & Medicine recently adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009) as guidelines for authors to use when dissemi...
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement has been developed as a guideline for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Despite the prevalent us...
To assess the quality of the meta-analyses (MAs) and systematic reviews (SRs) in Saudi journals indexed in PubMed using 2 scales: A MeaSurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and the overv...
The European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) guidelines have not made any specific recommendations regarding the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet, a dietary...
Peanuts and tree nuts (almonds, pistachios, walnuts, pecans, pine nuts, Brazil nuts, cashews, hazelnuts, macadamia nuts) (herein referred to as "nuts") are a good source of unsaturated fat...
Vegetarian and vegan diets have been shown to reduce chronic disease risk, including diabetes and cardiovascular disease, as well as several cardiometabolic risk factors. Whether vegetaria...
The present study conducted a meta-analysis of 22 randomly controlled trials to assess the effects of soluble fiber intake on blood pressure in human subjects. Using the Cochrane Handbook...
Fructose-containing sugars have been implicated in the epidemics of obesity, diabetes and related cardiometabolic disorders. This view is supported by lower quality evidence from ecologica...
The influence of study results on the chances of publication and the tendency of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study findings. Publication bias has an impact on the interpretation of clinical trials and meta-analyses. Bias can be minimized by insistence by editors on high-quality research, thorough literature reviews, acknowledgement of conflicts of interest, modification of peer review practices, etc.
Works consisting of studies using a quantitative method of combining the results of independent studies (usually drawn from the published literature) and synthesizing summaries and conclusions which may be used to evaluate therapeutic effectiveness, plan new studies, etc. It is often an overview of clinical trials. It is usually called a meta-analysis by the author or sponsoring body and should be differentiated from reviews of literature.
Critical analyses of books or other monographic works.
Works consisting of critical analyses of books or other monographic works.
Any deviation of results or inferences from the truth, or processes leading to such deviation. Bias can result from several sources: one-sided or systematic variations in measurement from the true value (systematic error); flaws in study design; deviation of inferences, interpretations, or analyses based on flawed data or data collection; etc. There is no sense of prejudice or subjectivity implied in the assessment of bias under these conditions.