The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2009;91:87-94.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01576
© 2009 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Simunovic, N.
Right arrow Articles by Bhandari, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Simunovic, N.
Right arrow Articles by Bhandari, M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Adult Trauma
Right arrow Spine
Right arrow Adult Hip
Right arrow Adult Knee
Right arrow Foot/Ankle
Right arrow Shoulder
Right arrow Elbow
Right arrow Hand/Wrist
Right arrow Sports
Right arrow Pediatrics
Right arrow Oncology
Right arrow Rehabilitation
Right arrow Education and Training
Right arrow Pain Management
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Methodological Issues in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies in Orthopaedic Research

Nicole Simunovic, BSc1, Sheila Sprague, MSc1 and Mohit Bhandari, MD, MSc, FRCSC1

1 Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, 293 Wellington Street North, Suite 110, Hamilton, ON L8L 8E7, Canada. E-mail address for M. Bhandari: bhandam{at}mcmaster.ca

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity.

The validity and applicability of a systematic review depends on the quality of the primary studies that are included and the quality of the methods used to conduct the review itself. Sometimes, observational studies represent the best available evidence. Subject to selection, information, and confounding biases, observational studies are thought to overestimate treatment or exposure effects. A systematic review of observational data must therefore attempt to minimize or prevent these sources of bias by developing explicit but also broad inclusion and exclusion criteria focused on extracting the best available evidence relevant to the review question. Systematic reviews must also make use of an expansive search strategy, with use of multiple resources, to demonstrate the reproducibility of selection and quality-assessment criteria, to perform a quantitative analysis and adjustment for confounding where appropriate, and to explore possible reasons for differences between the results of the primary studies. In this paper, we address the advantages and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies and suggest solutions at the design phase of protocol development.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?