PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2025; 35(S 01): S128-S135
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1793811
Research and Publications: Contemporary and Beyond
Review Article

How to Conduct High-Quality Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Radiology and Interventional Radiology

Manish Shaw 
1   Department of Interventional Radiology, National Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
,
Sanjiv Sharma
2   Department of Interventional Radiology, NIMSR, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses form a secondary research methodology that identifies and critically appraises all the relevant studies that are available in various databases to answer a particular research question in an unbiased and systematic manner. In the pyramid of level of evidence, the systematic review of high-quality studies is placed at the highest hierarchy position. Meta-analysis is the statistical analysis of the systematic review that provides pooled estimates of the effect of individual studies in the systematic review, but sometimes a meta-analysis may not always be possible. This article elaborates the key steps to conduct a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis in the field of radiology and intervention radiology, which will help the readers to design and conduct them along with to understand and interpret this secondary research.

Keywords

systematic review - meta-analysis - pooled estimates - evidence-based medicine


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
09. Januar 2025

© 2025. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Mak S, Thomas A. Steps for conducting a scoping review. J Grad Med Educ 2022; 14 (05) 565-567
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Durning SJ, Young ME. Knowledge syntheses in medical education: demystifying scoping reviews. Acad Med 2017; 92 (02) 161-166
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Rouse B, Chaimani A, Li T. Network meta-analysis: an introduction for clinicians. Intern Emerg Med 2017; 12 (01) 103-111
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Rubin A, Bellamy J. Practitioner's Guide to Using Research for Evidence-Based Practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2012
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Kim G. How to perform and write a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Health Nurs Res 2023; 29 (03) 161-165
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Garritty C, Hamel C, Trivella M. et al; Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness. BMJ 2024; 384: e076335
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 MacLure K, Paudyal V, Stewart D. Reviewing the literature, how systematic is systematic?. Int J Clin Pharm 2016; 38 (03) 685-694
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Mathew JL. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: a guide for beginners. Indian Pediatr 2022; 59 (04) 320-330
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G. et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 2
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Pieper D, Rombey T. Where to prospectively register a systematic review. Syst Rev 2022; 11 (01) 8
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151 (04) 264-269 , W64
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372 (71) n71
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Andrade C. Understanding the basics of meta-analysis and how to read a forest plot: as simple as it gets. J Clin Psychiatry 2020; 81 (05) 21858
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Buchan IE. Heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Accessed August 13, 2024 at: https://www.statsdirect.com/help/meta_analysis/heterogeneity.htm
  • 15 Morton SC, Adams JL, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG. Meta-Regression Approaches: What, Why, When, and How?. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2004
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Schünemann HJ, Higgins JP, Vist GE. et al. Completing “summary of findings” tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Chandler J, Thomas J, Higgins JPT. et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systemic Reviews of Interventions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2019
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar