Child Health Nursing Research

  • 제29권3호
  • /
  • Pages.161-165
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2287-9110(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-9129(eISSN)
한국아동간호학회 (Korean Academy of Child Health Nursing)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

How to perform and write a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Gaeun Kim (College of Nursing.Research Institute of Nursing Science, Keimyung University)
  • 투고 : 2023.07.21
  • 심사 : 2023.07.26
  • 발행 : 2023.07.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

키워드

과제정보

This study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (No. 2022R1A2C1012697).

참고문헌

  1. Rubin A, Bellamy J. Practitioner's guide to using research for evidence-based practice. 3rd ed. Wiley; 2022. p. 48-49. 
  2. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal. 1996;312(7023):71-72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 
  3. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005;293(19):2362-2366. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.19.2362 
  4. Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Milbank Quarterly. 2016;94(3):485-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210 
  5. Fontelo P, Liu F. A review of recent publication trends from top publishing countries. Systematic Reviews. 2018;7(1):147. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0819-1 
  6. Kim G, Baik SK. Overview and recent trends of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in hepatology. Clinical and Molecular Hepatology. 2014;20(2):137-150. https://doi.org/10.3350/cmh.2014.20.2.137 
  7. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal. 2009;26(2):91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x 
  8. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 
  9. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022) [Internet]. Cochrane; 2022 [cited 2023 July 3]. Available from: https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook 
  10. Granados-Duque V, Garcia-Perdomo HA. Systematic review and meta-analysis: which pitfalls to avoid during this process. International Brazilian Journal of Urology. 2021;47(5):1037-1041. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2020.0746 
  11. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and UK EQUATOR Centre. EQUATOR Network [Internet]. [cited 2023 July 1]. Available from: https://www.equator-network.org 
  12. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine. 2021;18(3):e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583 
  13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(4):W65-W94. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 
  14. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PRISMA 2020 Statement [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 July 2]. Available from: http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/PRISMAStatement 
  15. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PRISMA 2020 Checklist [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 July 2]. Available from: http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/Checklist 
  16. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PRISMA 2020 Flow diagram template [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 July 2]. Available from: http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram 
  17. Cochrane. Cochrane database of systematic reviews [Internet]. [cited 2023 July 2]. Available from: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/about-cdsr 
  18. National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). PRO SPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. [cited 2023 July 1]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO 
  19. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. British Medical Journal. 2011;343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 
  20. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. British Medical Journal. 2019;366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898 
  21. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. British Medical Journal. 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 
  22. Cochrane. Cochrane methodology. Risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) [Internet]. [cited 2023 July 1]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/cochrane-methodology/risk-bias 
  23. Cochrane. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 July 1]. Available from: https://community.cochrane.org/help/tools-and-software/revman-5 
  24. Biostat. Comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) [Internet]. [cited 2023 July 2]. Available from: https://ko.meta-analysis.com/ 
  25. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011;64(4):383-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 
  26. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al.; GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal. 2004;328(7454):1490. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 
  27. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro guideline development tool [software]. 2015 [cited 2023 July 1]. Available from: https://gradepro.org 
  28. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. British Medical Journal. 2017;358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008