The most important difference between systematic review and traditional narrative review lies in their respective quality, namely the degree of bias control. Generally speaking, the sources of bias include the process of literature searching, study selection, data extraction and original studies. A systematic review may greatly reduce bias, as it takes effective steps such as developing search strategies, undertaking funnel plot analysis, using established criteria for study selection, and assessment of the methodology quality of studies. All these help to control, identify and, describe the possible bias.
Citation：
LAN Weihua,JIANG Jun. Bias Control of Systematic Reviews. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2004, 04(11): 789-793. doi:
Copy
Copyright © the editorial department of Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine of West China Medical Publisher. All rights reserved
| 1. |
［1］Li J, Wang JL. Methods and principals for systematic reviews[J]. Chinese Medical Journal, 2001; 81(1): 5355.
|
| 2. |
李静, 王家良. 系统评价的方法与原则[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2001; 81(1): 53～55.
|
| 3. |
［2］Liu JP. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice[J]. Medicine and Philosophy, 1999; 20 (10): 46.
|
| 4. |
刘建平. 循证医学与临床实践[J]. 医学与哲学, 1999; 20 (10): 4～6.
|
| 5. |
［3］Felson D. Bias in meta-analytic research[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 1992; 45(8):885-862.
|
| 6. |
［4］Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Quantitative procedures[A]. In: The science of reviewing research[M]. Cambridy. MA: Harvard University Press. 1984.
|
| 7. |
［5］Egger M, Smith GD, Schneidet M, Minder C. Bias in meta analysis detected by a simple, graphical test[J]. BMJ, 1997; 315(7109):629-634.
|
| 8. |
［6］Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized trials: Is blinding necessary[J]? Controlled Clin Trials, 1996; 17(1): 1-12.
|
| 9. |
［7］Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials[J]. JAMA, 1995; 273(5): 408-412.
|
| 10. |
［8］Clarke M, Oxman AD, editors. Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook 4.0[update 1999]; Section 6. In: The Cochrane Library[M/CD]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Oxford: Update Software, 2000, Issue 1.
|
| 11. |
［9］Wang JY. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice[M]. Science publishing-house. 1st ed. 2002.p.69-72.
|
| 12. |
王吉耀主编, 循证医学与临床实践[M]. 科学出版社. 第一版. 2002.p.69～72.
|
- 1. ［1］Li J, Wang JL. Methods and principals for systematic reviews[J]. Chinese Medical Journal, 2001; 81(1): 5355.
- 2. 李静, 王家良. 系统评价的方法与原则[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2001; 81(1): 53～55.
- 3. ［2］Liu JP. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice[J]. Medicine and Philosophy, 1999; 20 (10): 46.
- 4. 刘建平. 循证医学与临床实践[J]. 医学与哲学, 1999; 20 (10): 4～6.
- 5. ［3］Felson D. Bias in meta-analytic research[J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 1992; 45(8):885-862.
- 6. ［4］Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Quantitative procedures[A]. In: The science of reviewing research[M]. Cambridy. MA: Harvard University Press. 1984.
- 7. ［5］Egger M, Smith GD, Schneidet M, Minder C. Bias in meta analysis detected by a simple, graphical test[J]. BMJ, 1997; 315(7109):629-634.
- 8. ［6］Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized trials: Is blinding necessary[J]? Controlled Clin Trials, 1996; 17(1): 1-12.
- 9. ［7］Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials[J]. JAMA, 1995; 273(5): 408-412.
- 10. ［8］Clarke M, Oxman AD, editors. Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook 4.0[update 1999]; Section 6. In: The Cochrane Library[M/CD]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Oxford: Update Software, 2000, Issue 1.
- 11. ［9］Wang JY. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice[M]. Science publishing-house. 1st ed. 2002.p.69-72.
- 12. 王吉耀主编, 循证医学与临床实践[M]. 科学出版社. 第一版. 2002.p.69～72.
