Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
E-pub ahead of print

Systematic overview and critical appraisal of meta-analyses of interventions in intensive care medicine

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Recommendations for the nomenclature of cognitive change associated with anaesthesia and surgery-2018

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Continuous vital sign monitoring after major abdominal surgery-Quantification of micro events

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Corticosteroids and risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill adults: Protocol for a systematic review

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  4. Pre-operative haemodynamic monitoring and resuscitation in hip fracture patients: Protocol for a prospective observational study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  5. The association between pre-operative sepsis and 30-day mortality in hip fracture patients-A cohort study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

RATIONALE: Meta-analysed intervention effect estimates are perceived to represent the highest level of evidence. However, such effects and the randomized clinical trials which are included in them need critical appraisal before the effects can be trusted.

OBJECTIVE: Critical appraisal of a predefined set of all meta-analyses on interventions in intensive care medicine to assess their quality and assessed the risks of bias in those meta-analyses having the best quality.

METHODS: We conducted a systematic search to select all meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials on interventions used in intensive care medicine. Selected meta-analyses were critically appraised for basic scientific criteria, (1) presence of an available protocol, (2) report of a full search strategy, and (3) use of any bias risk assessment of included trials. All meta-analyses which qualified these criteria were scrutinized by full "Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews" ROBIS evaluation of 4 domains of risks of bias, and a "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" PRISMA evaluation.

RESULTS: We identified 467 meta-analyses. A total of 56 meta-analyses complied with these basic scientific criteria. We scrutinized the risks of bias in the 56 meta-analyses by full ROBIS evaluation and a PRISMA evaluation. Only 4 meta-analyses scored low risk of bias in all the 4 ROBIS domains and 41 meta-analyses reported all 27 items of the PRISMA checklist.

CONCLUSION: In contrast with what might be perceived as the highest level of evidence only 0.9% of all meta-analyses were judged to have overall low risk of bias.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
ISSN0001-5172
DOI
StatusE-pub ahead of print - 24 maj 2018

ID: 54149750