scholarly journals Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 4. Assessing heterogeneity of primary studies in systematic reviews and whether to combine their results

2005 ◽  
Vol 172 (5) ◽  
pp. 661-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Hatala
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Based Medicine

scholarly journals Pearls for Interpreting Neurosurgical Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Lessons From a Collaborative Effort

Neurosurgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor M Lu ◽  
Christopher S Graffeo ◽  
Avital Perry ◽  
Michael J Link ◽  
Fredric B Meyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cranial Neuralgia ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature have surged in popularity over the last decade. It is our concern that, without a renewed effort to critically interpret and appraise these studies as high or low quality, we run the risk of the quality and value of evidence-based medicine in neurosurgery being misinterpreted. Correspondingly, we have outlined 4 major domains to target in interpreting neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on the lessons learned by a collaboration of clinicians and academics summarized as 4 pearls. The domains of (1) heterogeneity, (2) modeling, (3) certainty, and (4) bias in neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified as aspects in which the authors’ approaches have changed over time to improve robustness and transparency. Examples of how and why these pearls were adapted were provided in areas of cranial neuralgia, spine, pediatric, and neuro-oncology to demonstrate how neurosurgical readers and writers may improve their interpretation of these domains. The incorporation of these pearls into practice will empower neurosurgical academics to effectively interpret systematic reviews and meta-analyses, enhancing the quality of our evidence-based medicine literature while maintaining a critical focus on the needs of the individual patients in neurosurgery.

Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: what about in 2011? The next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 633-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulo José Fortes Villas Boas ◽  
Regina Stella Spagnuolo ◽  
Amélia Kamegasawa ◽  
Leandro Gobbo Braz ◽  
Adriana Polachini do Valle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Insufficient Evidence ◽  
Based Medicine

scholarly journals Influência da concentração de condicionamento do ácido hidrofluorídrico na adesão protética de cerâmicas vítreas: uma revisão sistemática

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e7810212093
Author(s):  
Millena Silva Cardoso ◽  
Laís Ferrante de Faria ◽  
Camila Moreira Lima ◽  
Fabíola Pessôa Pereira Leite ◽  
Laércio Almeida de Melo
Keyword(s):  
Acid Concentration ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Hydrofluoric Acid ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Ceramic Surface ◽  
Based Medicine

Objetivo: O objetivo dessa revisão sistemática foi avaliar a influência das diferentes concentrações do ácido hidrofluorídrico (HF) no condicionamento das cerâmicas vítreas. Materiais e Métodos: Esta revisão reuniu estudos in vitro a partir de buscas nas bases Cochrane Library, Lilacs, PubMed, SciElo, Scopus e Web of Science, através dos descritores “Veneers”, “Crowns”, “Ceramics”, “Ceramic”, “Surface Treatments”, “Surface”, “Hydrofluoric Acid Concentration”, “Acid Concentration”, “Adhesion”, “Hydrofluoric Acid”. Foram incluídos estudos que investigaram os efeitos da concentração do ácido hidrofluorídrico através de diferentes concentrações entre grupos. O nível de evidência dos artigos selecionados seguiu os princípios do Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. Esta revisão seguiu as recomendações do PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyzes). Resultados: As estratégias de busca encontraram 151 títulos, dos quais 8 foram eleitos e incluídos nessa revisão. Os parâmetros de avaliação incluíram a influência da concentração do ácido quanto a resistência a flexão, rugosidade superficial, ângulo de molhamento e resistência ao microcisalhamento. Nos estudos, as cerâmicas foram condicionadas com diferentes tipos de concentração e, no geral, o HF a 5% teve o melhor desempenho. Conclusão: Os estudos encontraram mais resultados negativos para as concentrações mais baixas (1% e 3%). Apesar de algumas vantagens, o HF a 10% também não teve os melhores resultados, os quais foram de autoria do HF a 5%. Além disso, a concentração não pode ser vista como o único e principal fator importante na qualidade de adesão das cerâmicas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document