Common types and methodologies of systematic reviews in surgical fields_Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Authors：

ZHOU Jieyi ¹ , YUAN Lixia ¹ , CHEN Ying ² , XU Sheng ¹ ,  ZHOU Xu ^1,3

1. Evidence-based Medicine Research Center, Jiangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, 330004, P. R. China;
2. Department of Preventive Medicine, Jiangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, 330004, P. R. China;
3. Key Laboratory of Drug-Targeting and Drug Delivery System of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, 610041, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

ZHOU Xu, Email: 88299077@qq.com

Keywords：

Surgery; systematic review; evidence-based medicine; review

DOI：

10.7507/1007-4848.202405072

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Evidence serves as the driving force shifting medical practice from empirical medicine towards evidence-based medicine. In the current era of information explosion, it is challenging for clinical surgeons to extract evidence from the vast pool of primary research literature to address clinical issues. Literature reviews, as a form of synthesized evidence, are particularly crucial for precise and efficient evidence utilization. A new form of review within the framework of evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, also has widespread application in the surgical domain. With the development of methodological approaches in evidence-based medicine, the types of systematic reviews continue to diversify. This paper outlines and summarizes the common types and methodologies of systematic reviews in the surgical field, aiming to provide a clear framework for surgical practitioners to select evidence for both confirming and innovating clinical practices in specific clinical challenges.

Citation： ZHOU Jieyi, YUAN Lixia, CHEN Ying, XU Sheng, ZHOU Xu. Common types and methodologies of systematic reviews in surgical fields. Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2025, 32(3): 406-415. doi: 10.7507/1007-4848.202405072 Copy

1.	Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, et al. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018, 18(1): 5.
2.	Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 2010, 340: c869.
3.	Lasserson TJ, Thomas J, JPT H. Chapter 1: Starting a review. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023): Cochrane. 2023.
4.	Kakkos SK, Vega de Ceniga M, Naylor R. A systematic review and meta-analysis of peri-procedural outcomes in patients undergoing carotid interventions following thrombolysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2021, 62(3): 340-349.
5.	Schmidt LM, Gøtzsche PC. Of mites and men: Reference bias in narrative review articles. J Fam Pract, 2005, 54(4): 334-338.
6.	Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, et al. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet, 1991, 337(8746): 867-872.
7.	Crowther M, Lim W, Crowther MA. Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Blood, 2010, 116(17): 3140-3146.
8.	Higgins JP. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Accessed on 2024-05-10.
9.	Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2011, 343: d5928.
10.	Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2019, 366: l4898.
11.	Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol, 2010, 25(9): 603-605.
12.	Lohr KN, Carey TS. Assessing "best evidence": Issues in grading the quality of studies for systematic reviews. Jt Comm J Qual Improv, 1999, 25(9): 470-479.
13.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med, 2009, 151(4): 264-269.
14.	Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n71.
15.	Nederkoorn PJ, Mali WP, Eikelboom BC, et al. Preoperative diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis: Accuracy of noninvasive testing. Stroke, 2002, 33(8): 2003-2008.
16.	Takwoingi Y, Dendukuri N, Schiller I, et al. Chapter 10: Undertaking meta-analysis. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM, et al (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Version 2.0 (updated July 2023): Cochrane. 2023.
17.	Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med, 2011, 155(8): 529-536.
18.	Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. John Wiley & Sons, 2023.
19.	McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: The PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA, 2018, 319(4): 388-396.
20.	Chaimani ACD, Li T, Higgins JPT, et al. Chapter 11: Undertaking network meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023.
21.	Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med, 2004, 23(20): 3105-3124.
22.	Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: Combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ, 2005, 331(7521): 897-900.
23.	White IR. Network meta-analysis. Stata J, 2015, 15(4): 951-985.
24.	Aiolfi A, Nosotti M, Micheletto G, et al. Pulmonary lobectomy for cancer: Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing open, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and robotic approach. Surgery, 2021, 169(2): 436-446.
25.	Leucht S, Chaimani A, Cipriani AS, et al. Network meta-analyses should be the highest level of evidence in treatment guidelines. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 2016, 266(6): 477-480.
26.	Cooper NJ, Peters J, Lai MC, et al. How valuable are multiple treatment comparison methods in evidence-based health-care evaluation? Value Health, 2011, 14(2): 371-380.
27.	Li T, Puhan MA, Vedula SS, et al. Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Med, 2011, 9: 79.
28.	Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: Survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ, 2009, 338: b1147.
29.	Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins JP. A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(8): 857-864.
30.	Song F, Harvey I, Lilford R. Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions. J Clin Epidemiol, 2008, 61(5): 455-463.
31.	Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: Many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods, 2012, 3(2): 80-97.
32.	Smith TC, Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A. Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: A comparative study. Stat Med, 1995, 14(24): 2685-2699.
33.	Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, et al. WinBUGS-a Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput, 2000, 10: 325-337.
34.	Röver C. Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using the bayesmeta R package. J Stat Softw, 2020, 93: 1-51.
35.	Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol, 1997, 50(6): 683-691.
36.	van Valkenhoef G, Dias S, Ades AE, et al. Automated generation of node-splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods, 2016, 7(1): 80-93.
37.	Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: An overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(2): 163-171.
38.	Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, et al. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One, 2013, 8(10): e76654.
39.	Mavridis D, Welton NJ, Sutton A, et al. A selection model for accounting for publication bias in a full network meta-analysis. Stat Med, 2014, 33(30): 5399-5412.
40.	Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: Checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med, 2015, 162(11): 777-784.
41.	Belbasis L, Bellou V, Ioannidis JPA. Conducting umbrella reviews. BMJ Med, 2022, 1(1): e000071.
42.	Ioannidis JP. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: A primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. CMAJ, 2009, 181(8): 488-493.
43.	de Bont J, Jaganathan S, Dahlquist M, et al. Ambient air pollution and cardiovascular diseases: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Intern Med, 2022, 291(6): 779-800.
44.	Biondi-Zoccai G, Versaci F, Iskandrian AE, et al. Umbrella review and multivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies on hybrid non-invasive imaging for coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol, 2020, 27(5): 1744-1755.
45.	Marano L, Fusario D, Savelli V, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Updates Surg, 2021, 73(5): 1673-1689.
46.	Fusar-Poli P, Radua J. Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evid Based Ment Health, 2018, 21(3): 95-100.
47.	Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, et al. What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Syst Rev, 2016, 5(1): 190.
48.	Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, et al. Chapter V: Overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023): Cochrane, 2023.
49.	Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, et al. Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2015, 13(3): 132-140.
50.	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.
51.	Cates CJ, Oleszczuk M, Stovold E, et al. Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma: An overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2012, 10(10): CD010005.
52.	Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7: 10.
53.	Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 69: 225-234.
54.	Ballard M, Montgomery P. Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: A scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist. Res Synth Methods, 2017, 8(1): 92-108.
55.	Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. John wiley & sons, 2017.
56.	Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 2008, 336(7650): 924-926.
57.	Biondi-Zoccai G. Umbrella reviews. Evidence synthesis with overviews of reviews and meta-epidemiologic studies Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, 2016.
58.	Catalá-López F, Stevens A, Garritty C, et al. Rapid reviews for evidence synthesis. Med Clin (Barc), 2017, 148(9): 424-428.
59.	Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 130: 13-22.
60.	Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, et al. Defining rapid reviews: A systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 129: 74-85.
61.	Fønhus MS, Dalsbø TK. Heart surgery of severe rheumatic heart disease–A rapid review. Folkehelseinstituttet, 2021.
62.	Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci, 2010, 5: 56.
63.	Tricco AC, Straus SE, Ghaffar A, et al. Rapid reviews for health policy and systems decision-making: More important than ever before. Syst Rev, 2022, 11(1): 153.
64.	Langlois EV, Straus SE, Antony J, et al. Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage. BMJ Glob Health, 2019, 4(1): e001178.
65.	Kovoor JG, Scott NA, Tivey DR, et al. Proposed delay for safe surgery after COVID-19. ANZ J Surg, 2021, 91(4): 495-506.
66.	Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J, 2009, 26(2): 91-108.
67.	Klerings I, Robalino S, Booth A, et al. Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on literature search. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2023, 28(6): 412-417.
68.	Preston L, Turner J, Booth A, et al. Is there a relationship between surgical case volume and mortality in congenital heart disease services? A rapid evidence review. BMJ Open, 2015, 5(12): e009252.
69.	Garritty C, Hamel C, Trivella M, et al. Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness. BMJ, 2024, 384: e076335.
70.	Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol, 2014, 67(12): 1291-1294.
71.	Solou M, Ydreos I, Gavra M, et al. Controversies in the surgical treatment of chronic subdural hematoma: A systematic scoping review. Diagnostics (Basel), 2022, 12(9): 2060.
72.	Arksey H, O'malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Method, 2005, 8(1): 19-32.
73.	Gemelli M, Italiano EG, Geatti V, et al. Optimizing safety and success: The advantages of bloodless cardiac surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in Jehovah's witnesses. Curr Probl Cardiol, 2024, 49(1 Pt B): 102078.
74.	Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2015, 13(3): 141-146.
75.	Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018, 169(7): 467-473.
76.	喻佳洁, 陕飞, Peter McCulloch, 等. 外科创新技术/器械临床研究方法学—IDEAL框架与推荐系列文章之一: IDEAL框架与推荐介绍. 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志, 2021, 28(2): 131-136.Yu JJ, Shan F, McCulloch P, et al. The methodological framework of surgical innovation: The introduction of IDEAL framework and recommendation. Chin J Clin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2021, 28(2): 131-136.
77.	陕飞, 尹道馨, 李子禹, 等. 外科临床研究方法学指引—IDEAL框架及指南介绍与解读. 中国实用外科杂志, 2020, 40(1): 93-101.Shan F, Yin DX, Li ZY, et al. Methodological guidance for surgical research-introduction and interpretation of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Chin J Pract Surg, 2020, 40(1): 93-101.

1. Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, et al. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018, 18(1): 5.
2. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 2010, 340: c869.
3. Lasserson TJ, Thomas J, JPT H. Chapter 1: Starting a review. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023): Cochrane. 2023.
4. Kakkos SK, Vega de Ceniga M, Naylor R. A systematic review and meta-analysis of peri-procedural outcomes in patients undergoing carotid interventions following thrombolysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2021, 62(3): 340-349.
5. Schmidt LM, Gøtzsche PC. Of mites and men: Reference bias in narrative review articles. J Fam Pract, 2005, 54(4): 334-338.
6. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, et al. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet, 1991, 337(8746): 867-872.
7. Crowther M, Lim W, Crowther MA. Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Blood, 2010, 116(17): 3140-3146.
8. Higgins JP. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Accessed on 2024-05-10.
9. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2011, 343: d5928.
10. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2019, 366: l4898.
11. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol, 2010, 25(9): 603-605.
12. Lohr KN, Carey TS. Assessing "best evidence": Issues in grading the quality of studies for systematic reviews. Jt Comm J Qual Improv, 1999, 25(9): 470-479.
13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med, 2009, 151(4): 264-269.
14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n71.
15. Nederkoorn PJ, Mali WP, Eikelboom BC, et al. Preoperative diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis: Accuracy of noninvasive testing. Stroke, 2002, 33(8): 2003-2008.
16. Takwoingi Y, Dendukuri N, Schiller I, et al. Chapter 10: Undertaking meta-analysis. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM, et al (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Version 2.0 (updated July 2023): Cochrane. 2023.
17. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med, 2011, 155(8): 529-536.
18. Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. John Wiley & Sons, 2023.
19. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: The PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA, 2018, 319(4): 388-396.
20. Chaimani ACD, Li T, Higgins JPT, et al. Chapter 11: Undertaking network meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023.
21. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med, 2004, 23(20): 3105-3124.
22. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: Combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ, 2005, 331(7521): 897-900.
23. White IR. Network meta-analysis. Stata J, 2015, 15(4): 951-985.
24. Aiolfi A, Nosotti M, Micheletto G, et al. Pulmonary lobectomy for cancer: Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing open, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and robotic approach. Surgery, 2021, 169(2): 436-446.
25. Leucht S, Chaimani A, Cipriani AS, et al. Network meta-analyses should be the highest level of evidence in treatment guidelines. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 2016, 266(6): 477-480.
26. Cooper NJ, Peters J, Lai MC, et al. How valuable are multiple treatment comparison methods in evidence-based health-care evaluation? Value Health, 2011, 14(2): 371-380.
27. Li T, Puhan MA, Vedula SS, et al. Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Med, 2011, 9: 79.
28. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: Survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ, 2009, 338: b1147.
29. Salanti G, Marinho V, Higgins JP. A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(8): 857-864.
30. Song F, Harvey I, Lilford R. Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions. J Clin Epidemiol, 2008, 61(5): 455-463.
31. Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: Many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods, 2012, 3(2): 80-97.
32. Smith TC, Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A. Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: A comparative study. Stat Med, 1995, 14(24): 2685-2699.
33. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, et al. WinBUGS-a Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput, 2000, 10: 325-337.
34. Röver C. Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using the bayesmeta R package. J Stat Softw, 2020, 93: 1-51.
35. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol, 1997, 50(6): 683-691.
36. van Valkenhoef G, Dias S, Ades AE, et al. Automated generation of node-splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods, 2016, 7(1): 80-93.
37. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: An overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(2): 163-171.
38. Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, et al. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One, 2013, 8(10): e76654.
39. Mavridis D, Welton NJ, Sutton A, et al. A selection model for accounting for publication bias in a full network meta-analysis. Stat Med, 2014, 33(30): 5399-5412.
40. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: Checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med, 2015, 162(11): 777-784.
41. Belbasis L, Bellou V, Ioannidis JPA. Conducting umbrella reviews. BMJ Med, 2022, 1(1): e000071.
42. Ioannidis JP. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: A primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. CMAJ, 2009, 181(8): 488-493.
43. de Bont J, Jaganathan S, Dahlquist M, et al. Ambient air pollution and cardiovascular diseases: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Intern Med, 2022, 291(6): 779-800.
44. Biondi-Zoccai G, Versaci F, Iskandrian AE, et al. Umbrella review and multivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies on hybrid non-invasive imaging for coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol, 2020, 27(5): 1744-1755.
45. Marano L, Fusario D, Savelli V, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Updates Surg, 2021, 73(5): 1673-1689.
46. Fusar-Poli P, Radua J. Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evid Based Ment Health, 2018, 21(3): 95-100.
47. Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, et al. What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Syst Rev, 2016, 5(1): 190.
48. Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, et al. Chapter V: Overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023): Cochrane, 2023.
49. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, et al. Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2015, 13(3): 132-140.
50. 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.
51. Cates CJ, Oleszczuk M, Stovold E, et al. Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma: An overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2012, 10(10): CD010005.
52. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7: 10.
53. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 69: 225-234.
54. Ballard M, Montgomery P. Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: A scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist. Res Synth Methods, 2017, 8(1): 92-108.
55. Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. John wiley & sons, 2017.
56. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 2008, 336(7650): 924-926.
57. Biondi-Zoccai G. Umbrella reviews. Evidence synthesis with overviews of reviews and meta-epidemiologic studies Cham, Switzerland: Springer International, 2016.
58. Catalá-López F, Stevens A, Garritty C, et al. Rapid reviews for evidence synthesis. Med Clin (Barc), 2017, 148(9): 424-428.
59. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 130: 13-22.
60. Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, et al. Defining rapid reviews: A systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 129: 74-85.
61. Fønhus MS, Dalsbø TK. Heart surgery of severe rheumatic heart disease–A rapid review. Folkehelseinstituttet, 2021.
62. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci, 2010, 5: 56.
63. Tricco AC, Straus SE, Ghaffar A, et al. Rapid reviews for health policy and systems decision-making: More important than ever before. Syst Rev, 2022, 11(1): 153.
64. Langlois EV, Straus SE, Antony J, et al. Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage. BMJ Glob Health, 2019, 4(1): e001178.
65. Kovoor JG, Scott NA, Tivey DR, et al. Proposed delay for safe surgery after COVID-19. ANZ J Surg, 2021, 91(4): 495-506.
66. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J, 2009, 26(2): 91-108.
67. Klerings I, Robalino S, Booth A, et al. Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on literature search. BMJ Evid Based Med, 2023, 28(6): 412-417.
68. Preston L, Turner J, Booth A, et al. Is there a relationship between surgical case volume and mortality in congenital heart disease services? A rapid evidence review. BMJ Open, 2015, 5(12): e009252.
69. Garritty C, Hamel C, Trivella M, et al. Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness. BMJ, 2024, 384: e076335.
70. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol, 2014, 67(12): 1291-1294.
71. Solou M, Ydreos I, Gavra M, et al. Controversies in the surgical treatment of chronic subdural hematoma: A systematic scoping review. Diagnostics (Basel), 2022, 12(9): 2060.
72. Arksey H, O'malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Method, 2005, 8(1): 19-32.
73. Gemelli M, Italiano EG, Geatti V, et al. Optimizing safety and success: The advantages of bloodless cardiac surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in Jehovah's witnesses. Curr Probl Cardiol, 2024, 49(1 Pt B): 102078.
74. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2015, 13(3): 141-146.
75. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018, 169(7): 467-473.
76. 喻佳洁, 陕飞, Peter McCulloch, 等. 外科创新技术/器械临床研究方法学—IDEAL框架与推荐系列文章之一: IDEAL框架与推荐介绍. 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志, 2021, 28(2): 131-136.Yu JJ, Shan F, McCulloch P, et al. The methodological framework of surgical innovation: The introduction of IDEAL framework and recommendation. Chin J Clin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2021, 28(2): 131-136.
77. 陕飞, 尹道馨, 李子禹, 等. 外科临床研究方法学指引—IDEAL框架及指南介绍与解读. 中国实用外科杂志, 2020, 40(1): 93-101.Shan F, Yin DX, Li ZY, et al. Methodological guidance for surgical research-introduction and interpretation of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Chin J Pract Surg, 2020, 40(1): 93-101.

Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Common types and methodologies of systematic reviews in surgical fields

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content