Systematische Literaturstudien und Metaanalysen im physiotherapeutischen Kontext verstehen

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: Von den in der Praxis tätigen Physiotherapeuten wird vermehrt evidenzbasiertes therapeutisches Handeln erwartet. Dies setzt voraus, dass sie sich kontinuierlich über die neusten Forschungsergebnisse informieren. Die jährlich zunehmende Anzahl an Neupublikationen vor allem im Bereich der (randomisierten) klinischen Studien macht es Berufsangehörigen im Gesundheitswesen zeitlich oft schwer, sich neben ihrem Praxisalltag auf dem neusten Wissensstand zu halten. Mit systematischen Literaturstudien und Metaanalysen kann dem zunehmenden Information overflow auf eine effiziente Art und Weise entgegengewirkt werden.

Ziel/Methode: Die vorliegende Arbeit bringt Hintergrundinformationen und die Systematik systematischer Literaturstudien und Metaanalysen in einen physiotherapeutisch verständlichen Kontext.

Ergebnisse: Metaanalysen stellen eine systematische und quantitative Methode der Zusammenführung evidenter Ergebnisse aus individuellen vergleichbaren Studien dar, um wichtige (physio-)therapeutische Fragestellungen zu beantworten.

Schlussfolgerung: Für praktizierende Physiotherapeuten besitzt die Fähigkeit des Lesens und des kritischen Interpretierens von Metaanalysen einen großen Stellenwert in Bezug auf das evidenzbasierte therapeutische Handeln.

Abstract

Background: Practicing physiotherapists are increasingly expected to work evidence-based. This requires that they continuously catch up with the latest research findings. Due to the annually growing number of new publications predominantly in the field of (randomised) clinical studies health care professionals have time problems to keep up with the actual state of knowledge alongside with their daily practice. Systematic literature studies and meta-analyses can efficiently counteract this growing information overflow.

Objective/Method: This article adjusts background information and the systematics of systematic literature studies and meta-analyses to a physiotherapeutically comprehensible context.

Results: Meta-analyses generate a systematic and quantitative method of consolidating evident results of individual comparable studies in order to answer important (physiotherapeutic) questions.

Conclusion: With a view towards evidence-based therapeutic management the ability of reading and critically interpreting meta-analyses is very important for practising physiotherapists.

Schlüsselwörter

systematische Reviews - Metaanalyse - Physiotherapie

Key words

systematic reviews - meta-analysis - physiotherapy

• Literatur

• 1 Biondi-Zoccai G, Lotrionte M, Abbate A et al. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping Metaanalyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ 2006; 332: 202-209
• 2 Borenstein M. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. West Sussex: Wiley; 2010
• 3 Chalmers I. The letal consequences of failing to make use of all relevant evidence about the effects of medical treatments: the need for systematic reviews. In: Rothwell P, (ed) Treating Individuals: From Randomized Trails to Personalised Medicine. London: Elsevier; 2007
• 4 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1987
• 5 Crombie I, Davies H. What is meta-analysis?. 2009 www.whatisseries.co.uk
• 6 Egger M, Smith G, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 1997; 315: 1533-1537
• 7 Egger M, Smith G, Sterne JAC. Uses and abuses of meta-analysis. Clin Med 2001; 1: 478-484
• 8 Egger M. Systematic Reviews in Health Care – Meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ; 2007
• 9 Gilbert R, Salanti G, Harden M et al. Infant sleeping position and the sudden infant death syndrome: systematic review of observational studies and historical review of recommendations from 1940 to 2002. Int J Epidemiol 2005; 34: 874-887
• 10 Hedges L. Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics 1981; 6: 107-128
• 11 Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560
• 12 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and Metaanalyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions; explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700
• 13 McAlister FA, Clark HD, van Walraven C et al. The medical review article revisited: has the science improved?. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131: 947-951
• 14 Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S et al. Improving the quality of reports of Metaanalyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUORUM statement. The Lancet 1999; 354: 1896-1900
• 15 O’Rourke K. A historical perspective on meta-analysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results. J R Soc Med 2007; 100: 579-582
• 16 Pai M, McCulloch M, Gorman JD et al. Systematic reviews and Metaanalyses: An illustrated, step-by-step guide. Nat Med J of India 2004; 17: 86-95
• 17 Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). www.pedro.org.au
• 18 Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996; 312: 71-72
• 19 Solutions for Public Health (SPH). Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). www.sph.nhs.uk/what-we-do/public-health-workforce/resources/critical-appraisals-skills-programme
• 20 Thornton A, Lee P. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 207-216
• 21 www.cochrane.org