Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality

Spyros Kitsiou, Guy Paré, Mirou Jaana, Spyros Kitsiou, Guy Paré, Mirou Jaana

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases have increased over the past decade and become increasingly important to a wide range of clinicians, policy makers, and other health care stakeholders. While a few criticisms about their methodological rigor and synthesis approaches have recently appeared, no formal appraisal of their quality has been conducted yet.

Objective: The primary aim of this critical review was to evaluate the methodology, quality, and reporting characteristics of prior reviews that have investigated the effects of home telemonitoring interventions in the context of chronic diseases.

Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, the Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effects (DARE), and Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) of the Cochrane Library were electronically searched to find relevant systematic reviews, published between January 1966 and December 2012. Potential reviews were screened and assessed for inclusion independently by three reviewers. Data pertaining to the methods used were extracted from each included review and examined for accuracy by two reviewers. A validated quality assessment instrument, R-AMSTAR, was used as a framework to guide the assessment process.

Results: Twenty-four reviews, nine of which were meta-analyses, were identified from more than 200 citations. The bibliographic search revealed that the number of published reviews has increased substantially over the years in this area and although most reviews focus on studying the effects of home telemonitoring on patients with congestive heart failure, researcher interest has extended to other chronic diseases as well, such as diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma. Nevertheless, an important number of these reviews appear to lack optimal scientific rigor due to intrinsic methodological issues. Also, the overall quality of reviews does not appear to have improved over time. While several criteria were met satisfactorily by either all or nearly all reviews, such as the establishment of an a priori design with inclusion and exclusion criteria, use of electronic searches on multiple databases, and reporting of studies characteristics, there were other important areas that needed improvement. Duplicate data extraction, manual searches of highly relevant journals, inclusion of gray and non-English literature, assessment of the methodological quality of included studies and quality of evidence were key methodological procedures that were performed infrequently. Furthermore, certain methodological limitations identified in the synthesis of study results have affected the results and conclusions of some reviews.

Conclusions: Despite the availability of methodological guidelines that can be utilized to guide the proper conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and eliminate potential risks of bias, this knowledge has not yet been fully integrated in the area of home telemonitoring. Further efforts should be made to improve the design, conduct, reporting, and publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this area.

Keywords: chronic diseases; diabetes; heart failure; home telemonitoring; hypertension; meta-analysis as topic; pulmonary disease; quality assessment; risk of bias; systematic review as topic; telehealth; telemetry.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram describing the selection process of SRs and MAs.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of HT systematic reviews and meta-analyses published per year.

References

    1. World Health Organization . Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010: Description of the global burden of NCDs, their risk factors and determinants. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2011. pp. 1–176.
    1. Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med. 2006 Nov;3(11):e442. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030442.
    1. Shaw JE, Sicree RA, Zimmet PZ. Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2010 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010 Jan;87(1):4–14. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.007.
    1. Meystre S. The current state of telemonitoring: a comment on the literature. Telemed J E Health. 2005 Feb;11(1):63–9. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2005.11.63.
    1. Paré G, Poba-Nzaou P, Sicotte C. Home telemonitoring for chronic disease management: an economic assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Apr;29(2):155–61. doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000111.
    1. Anker SD, Koehler F, Abraham WT. Telemedicine and remote management of patients with heart failure. Lancet. 2011 Aug 20;378(9792):731–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61229-4.
    1. Roine R, Ohinmaa A, Hailey D. Assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of the literature. CMAJ. 2001 Sep 18;165(6):765–71.
    1. Chien E, Geffen M, Gordon D. A Study Commissioned by Canada Health Infoway. [2013-07-11]. Telehealth Benefits and Adoption-Connecting People and Providers Across Canada .
    1. Stroetmann KA, Artmann J, Stroetmann VN. Final European progress report: European Commission—Directorate General Information Society and Media, ICT for Health Unit. [2013-07-11]. European countries on their journey towards national eHealth infrastructures .
    1. Darkins A, Ryan P, Kobb R, Foster L, Edmonson E, Wakefield B, Lancaster AE. Care Coordination/Home Telehealth: the systematic implementation of health informatics, home telehealth, and disease management to support the care of veteran patients with chronic conditions. Telemed J E Health. 2008 Dec;14(10):1118–26. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2008.0021.
    1. Cartwright M, Hirani SP, Rixon L, Beynon M, Doll H, Bower P, Bardsley M, Steventon A, Knapp M, Henderson C, Rogers A, Sanders C, Fitzpatrick R, Barlow J, Newman SP, Whole Systems Demonstrator Evaluation Team Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013;346:f653.
    1. Palmer M, Steffen C, Iakovidis I, Giorgio F. European Commission perspective: Telemedicine for the benefit of patients. Chronic disease management and remote patient monitoring. Health Care Systems and Society, Eurohealth. 2009;15(1):13–15.
    1. European Commission On telemedicine for the benefit of patients, healthcare systems and society. 2008. [2013-07-11]. .
    1. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Mar 1;126(5):376–80.
    1. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994 Sep 3;309(6954):597–9.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
    1. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007 Mar 27;4(3):e78. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078.
    1. Jadad AR, Moher M, Browman GP, Booker L, Sigouin C, Fuentes M, Stevens R. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ. 2000 Feb 26;320(7234):537–40.
    1. Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011 Aug;14(3):116–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01522.x.
    1. Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, Slater L, Rowe BH. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Nov;38(5):518–26. doi: 10.1067/mem.2001.115881.
    1. MacDonald SL, Canfield SE, Fesperman SF, Dahm P. Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008. J Urol. 2010 Aug;184(2):648–53. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.127.
    1. Gurné O, Conraads V, Missault L, Mullens W, Vachierys JL, Van Mieghem W, Droogne W, Pouleur AC, Troisfontaine P, Huez S, Nellessens E, Peperstraete B, Blouardo P, Vanhaecke J, Raes D, Belgian Working Group on Heart Failure A critical review on telemonitoring in heart failure. Acta Cardiol. 2012 Aug;67(4):439–44.
    1. Casas JP, Kwong J, Ebrahim S. Telemonitoring for chronic heart failure: not ready for prime time. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2011:ED000008. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000008.
    1. Senn SJ. Overstating the evidence: double counting in meta-analysis and related problems. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-10.
    1. Green S, Higgins JPT, Alderson P, Clarke M, Mulrow CD, Oxman AD. Introduction. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. pp. 1–9.
    1. Chaudhry SI, Phillips CO, Stewart SS, Riegel B, Mattera JA, Jerant AF, Krumholz HM. Telemonitoring for patients with chronic heart failure: a systematic review. J Card Fail. 2007 Feb;13(1):56–62. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2006.09.001.
    1. Clark RA, Inglis SC, McAlister FA, Cleland JG, Stewart S. Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2007 May 5;334(7600):942. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39156.536968.55.
    1. Clarke M, Shah A, Sharma U. Systematic review of studies on telemonitoring of patients with congestive heart failure: a meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(1):7–14. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2010.100113.
    1. Dang S, Dimmick S, Kelkar G. Evaluating the evidence base for the use of home telehealth remote monitoring in elderly with heart failure. Telemed J E Health. 2009 Oct;15(8):783–96. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0028.
    1. Giamouzis G, Mastrogiannis D, Koutrakis K, Karayannis G, Parisis C, Rountas C, Adreanides E, Dafoulas GE, Stafylas PC, Skoularigis J, Giacomelli S, Olivari Z, Triposkiadis F. Telemonitoring in chronic heart failure: a systematic review. Cardiol Res Pract. 2012;2012:410820. doi: 10.1155/2012/410820.
    1. Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Ball J, Lewinter C, Cullington D, Stewart S, Cleland JG. Structured telephone support or telemonitoring programmes for patients with chronic heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(8):CD007228. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007228.pub2.
    1. Louis AA, Turner T, Gretton M, Baksh A, Cleland JGF. A systematic review of telemonitoring for the management of heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2003 Oct;5(5):583–90.
    1. Maric B, Kaan A, Ignaszewski A, Lear SA. A systematic review of telemonitoring technologies in heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009 May;11(5):506–17. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfp036.
    1. Polisena J, Tran K, Cimon K, Hutton B, McGill S, Palmer K, Scott RE. Home telemonitoring for congestive heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2010;16(2):68–76. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2009.090406.
    1. Seto E. Cost comparison between telemonitoring and usual care of heart failure: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health. 2008 Sep;14(7):679–86. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2007.0114.
    1. AbuDagga A, Resnick HE, Alwan M. Impact of blood pressure telemonitoring on hypertension outcomes: a literature review. Telemed J E Health. 2010 Sep;16(7):830–8. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2010.0015.
    1. Jaana M, Paré G, Sicotte C. Hypertension Home Telemonitoring: Current Evidence and Recommendations for Future Studies. Disease Management & Health Outcomes. 2007;15(1):19–31.
    1. Omboni S, Guarda A. Impact of home blood pressure telemonitoring and blood pressure control: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Am J Hypertens. 2011 Sep;24(9):989–98. doi: 10.1038/ajh.2011.100.
    1. Verberk WJ, Kessels AG, Thien T. Telecare is a valuable tool for hypertension management, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood Press Monit. 2011 Jun;16(3):149–55. doi: 10.1097/MBP.0b013e328346e092.
    1. Bolton CE, Waters CS, Peirce S, Elwyn G, EPSRC and MRC Grand Challenge Team Insufficient evidence of benefit: a systematic review of home telemonitoring for COPD. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Dec;17(6):1216–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01536.x.
    1. Cox NS, Alison JA, Rasekaba T, Holland AE. Telehealth in cystic fibrosis: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare. 2012 Mar;18(2):72–8. doi: 10.1258/jtt.2011.110705.
    1. Franek J. Home telehealth for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2012;12(11):1–58.
    1. Jaana M, Paré G, Sicotte C. Home telemonitoring for respiratory conditions: a systematic review. Am J Manag Care. 2009 May;15(5):313–20.
    1. Farmer A, Gibson OJ, Tarassenko L, Neil A. A systematic review of telemedicine interventions to support blood glucose self-monitoring in diabetes. Diabet Med. 2005 Oct;22(10):1372–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01627.x.
    1. Jaana M, Paré G. Home telemonitoring of patients with diabetes: a systematic assessment of observed effects. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007 Apr;13(2):242–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00686.x.
    1. Medical Advisory Secretariat Home telemonitoring for type 2 diabetes: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2009;9(24):1–38.
    1. Montori VM, Helgemoe PK, Guyatt GH, Dean DS, Leung TW, Smith SA, Kudva YC. Telecare for patients with type 1 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control: a randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2004 May;27(5):1088–94.
    1. Paré G, Moqadem K, Pineau G, St-Hilaire C. Clinical effects of home telemonitoring in the context of diabetes, asthma, heart failure and hypertension: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(2):e21. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1357.
    1. Paré G, Jaana M, Sicotte C. Systematic review of home telemonitoring for chronic diseases: the evidence base. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(3):269–77. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2270.
    1. Inglis SC, Clark RA, McAlister FA, Stewart S, Cleland JG. Which components of heart failure programmes are effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as the primary component of chronic heart failure management in 8323 patients: Abridged Cochrane Review. Eur J Heart Fail. 2011 Sep;13(9):1028–40. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfr039.
    1. Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, Avezova R, Kossan G, Chew L, Maida CA. From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance. Open Dent J. 2010;4:84–91.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
    1. Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Chou R, Shekelle P, Robinson KA. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2008 May 20;148(10):776–82. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00010.
    1. Dar O, Riley J, Chapman C, Dubrey SW, Morris S, Rosen SD, Roughton M, Cowie MR. A randomized trial of home telemonitoring in a typical elderly heart failure population in North West London: results of the Home-HF study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009 Mar;11(3):319–25. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfn050.
    1. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Haugh MC, Henry D, Hill S, Jaeschke R, Leng G, Liberati A, Magrini N, Mason J, Middleton P, Mrukowicz J, O'Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schünemann HJ, Edejer T, Varonen H, Vist GE, Williams JW, Zaza S, GRADE Working Group Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004 Jun 19;328(7454):1490. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490.
    1. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001 Jul 7;323(7303):42–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42.
    1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination . Undertaking systematic review of research on effectiveness. York: University of York; 2001.
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. pp. 187–241.
    1. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998 Jun;52(6):377–84.
    1. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials. 1996 Feb;17(1):1–12. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4.
    1. Hailey D, Ohinmaa A, Roine R. Study quality and evidence of benefit in recent assessments of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10(6):318–24. doi: 10.1258/1357633042602053.
    1. Jovell AJ, Navarro-Rubio MD. Evaluation of scientific evidence. Med Clin (Barc) 1995 Dec 2;105(19):740–3.
    1. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Rothstein HR. Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots. BMJ. 2008 Jun 21;336(7658):1413–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a117.
    1. Huedo-Medina TB, Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods. 2006 Jun;11(2):193–206. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193.
    1. Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, Schumacher M. Undue reliance on I(2) in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:79. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-79.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539–58. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins J, Altman DG. Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta‐Analyses. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. pp. 243–296.
    1. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E. Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2007 Nov 3;335(7626):914–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39343.408449.80.
    1. Ioannidis JP. Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008 Oct;14(5):951–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.00986.x.
    1. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E. Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2007 Nov 3;335(7626):914–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39343.408449.80.
    1. HETEROGI: Stata module to quantify heterogeneity in meta-analysis [computer program] Version revised 25 Jan 2006: Statistical Software Components S449201, Boston College Department of Economics; 2005. [2013-07-16]. .
    1. Thorlund K, Imberger G, Johnston BC, Walsh M, Awad T, Thabane L, Gluud C, Devereaux PJ, Wetterslev J. Evolution of heterogeneity (I2) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals in large meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e39471. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039471.
    1. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
    1. Ortiz de Guinea A, Webster J, Staples DS. A meta-analysis of the consequences of virtualness on team functioning. Information & Management. 2012 Oct;49(6):301–308. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2012.08.003.
    1. Green BB, Cook AJ, Ralston JD, Fishman PA, Catz SL, Carlson J, Carrell D, Tyll L, Larson EB, Thompson RS. Effectiveness of home blood pressure monitoring, Web communication, and pharmacist care on hypertension control: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008 Jun 25;299(24):2857–67. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.24.2857.
    1. Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J. In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Sep;58(9):894–901. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.006.
    1. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ. 2006 Sep 16;333(7568):597–600. doi: 10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597.
    1. Kavvoura FK, Ioannidis JP. Methods for meta-analysis in genetic association studies: a review of their potential and pitfalls. Hum Genet. 2008 Feb;123(1):1–14. doi: 10.1007/s00439-007-0445-9.
    1. Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, Jadad AR, Tramèr MR, Walder B. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg. 2001 Mar;92(3):700–9.
    1. The Cochrane Collaboration . In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008.
    1. Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997 Aug 2;350(9074):326–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02419-7.
    1. Grégoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a tower of babel bias? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1995 Jan;48(1):159–163. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00098-B.
    1. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(1):1–76.
    1. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998 Aug 22;352(9128):609–13. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01085-X.
    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408–12.
    1. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, Britten N. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version 1. 2006. .
    1. Rodgers M, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Roberts H, Britten N, Popay J. Testing Methodological Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Smoke Alarm Ownership and Function. Evaluation. 2009 Jan 01;15(1):49–73. doi: 10.1177/1356389008097871.
    1. Arai L, Britten N, Popay J, Roberts H, Petticrew M, Rodgers M, Sowden A. Testing methodological developments in the conduct of narrative synthesis: a demonstration review of research on the implementation of smoke alarm interventions. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2007 Aug 01;3(3):361–383. doi: 10.1332/174426407781738029.
    1. Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ. 2011;342:d549.
    1. Riley RD, Gates S, Neilson J, Alfirevic Z. Statistical methods can be improved within Cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jun;64(6):608–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.08.002.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir