Z Orthop Unfall 2019; 157(04): 392-399
DOI: 10.1055/a-0751-3156
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Reading, Understanding, Interpreting Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Sebastian Scheidt
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
Patrick Vavken
2   Orthopädie, alphaclinic Zürich, Schweiz
Cornelius Jacobs
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
Sebastian Koob
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
Davide Cucchi
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
Eva Kaup
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
Dieter Christian Wirtz
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
Matthias D. Wimmer
1   Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 November 2018 (online)


The rising number of medical publications makes it difficult to keep up-to-date on scientific knowledge. In recent years, reviews in the form of narrative or systematic publications and meta-analyses have increased. These can only be interpreted and evaluated if the reader understands the techniques used. This review article describes the differences between narrative and systematic reviews, together with the characteristics of meta-analysis, and discusses their interpretation. The concept of systematic reviews and meta-analysis includes a systematic literature search and summary, together with an appraisal of the quality of the publications. Systematic reviews are often considered to be original studies due to their structure and ability to reduce bias.

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed. Im Internet: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
  • 2 Dinis-Oliveira RJ, Magalhães T. The inherent drawbacks of the pressure to publish in health sciences: good or bad science [version 2; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Res 2016; 4: 419 doi:10.12688/f1000research.6809.2
  • 3 AWMF – Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften. Erarbeitung von Leitlinien für Diagnostik und Therapie: Methodische Empfehlungen („Leitlinie für Leitlinien“, Stand Dez. 2004). Im Internet: https://www.awmf.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Leitlinien/Werkzeuge/Publikationen/methoden.pdf Stand: 15.06.2018
  • 4 Montori VM, Swiontkowski MF, Cook DJ. Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (413) 43-54
  • 5 Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W. et al. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; (455) 23-29
  • 6 Gliner JA, Morgan GA, Harmon RJ. et al. Meta-analysis: formulation and interpretation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2003; 42: 1376-1379
  • 7 Laupacis A. The Cochrane Collaboration – how is it progressing?. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2815-2822
  • 8 Linde K, Willich SN. How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine. J R Soc Med 2003; 96: 17-22
  • 9 Vavken P, Culen G, Dorotka R. Die klinische Anwendbarkeit evidenzbasierter Orthopädie – Eine Querschnittsstudie der Qualität der Evidenz orthopädischer Studien. Z Orthop Unfall 2008; 146: 21-25
  • 10 Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC. et al. Usersʼ guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1995; 274: 1800-1804
  • 11 Simunovic N, Sprague S, Bhandari M. Methodological issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies in orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (Suppl. 03) S87-S94
  • 12 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012
  • 13 Straus SE, McAlister FA. Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on common criticisms. CMAJ 2000; 163: 837-841
  • 14 Bown MJ, Sutton AJ. Quality control in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2010; 40: 669-677
  • 15 Altman DG, Burton MJ. The Cochrane Collaboration. Langenbecks Arch Surg 1999; 384: 432-436
  • 16 Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and Efficiency: random Reflections on Health Services. London: RSM Press; 1999
  • 17 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. et al. CONSORT 2010: Aktualisierte Leitlinie für Berichte randomisierter Studien im Parallelgruppen-Design. Im Internet: www.consort-statement.org/Media/Default/Downloads/Translations/German_de/CONSORT Statement German 2011.pdf Stand: 12.06.2018
  • 18 Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S. et al. [Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM Statement]. Rev Esp Salud Publica 2000; 74: 107-118
  • 19 Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J. et al. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med 2003; 96: 118-121
  • 20 Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 380-387
  • 21 Glasziou P, Irwig L, Bain C, Colditz G. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: a Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001
  • 22 da Costa Santos CM, de Mattos Pimenta CA, Nobre MRC. The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2007; 15: 508-511
  • 23 Riva JJ, Malik KMP, Burnie SJ. et al. What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians. J Can Chiropr Assoc 2012; 56: 167-171
  • 24 Green LA, Fryer jr. GE, Yawn BP. et al. The ecology of medical care revisited. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 2021-2025
  • 25 Slobogean GP, Verma A, Giustini D. et al. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane index most primary studies but not abstracts included in orthopedic meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1261-1267
  • 26 Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Systematic Reviews to Support Evidence-based Medicine: How to Review and Apply Findings of Healthcare Research. London, United Kingdom: Royal Society of Medicine Press; 2003: 21-35
  • 27 Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J. et al. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials 2000; 21: 476-487
  • 28 Torgerson C. Systematic Reviews. London, United Kingdom: Continuum Publishing; 2003: 52-88
  • 29 Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C. et al. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1635-1640
  • 30 Chambers EA. An introduction to meta-analysis with articles from the Journal of Educational Research (1992–2002). J Educat Res 2004; 98: 35-45
  • 31 Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman D. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. London, United Kingdom: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001: 122-210
  • 32 Wells G, Shea B, OʼConnell D. et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2008. Im Internet: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp Stand: 01.06.2018
  • 33 Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewersʼ Manual: 2014 edition. Im Internet: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/reviewersmanual-2014.pdf Stand: 10.06.2018
  • 34 Peinemann F, Tushabe DA, Kleijnen J. Using multiple types of studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions – a systematic review. PLoS One 2013; 8: e85035
  • 35 Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ 2001; 322: 1479-1480
  • 36 Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560
  • 37 Torgerson CJ. Publication bias: the Achillesʼ heel of systematic reviews?. Br J Educat Studies 2006; 54: 89-102
  • 38 Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992; 267: 374-378
  • 39 Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M. et al. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997; 350: 326-329
  • 40 Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994; 309: 1286-1291
  • 41 Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M. et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629-634
  • 42 Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N. et al. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 2006; 333: 597-600
  • 43 Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A: 1-3
  • 44 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Clinical Guidelines and Recommendations: Evidence-based research provides the basis for sound clinical practice guidelines and recommendations. Im Internet: https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/clinicians-providers/guidelines-recommendations/index.html Stand: 05.06.2018
  • 45 DistillerSR Forest Plot Generator from Evidence Partners. Forest Plot Generator. Im Internet: https://www.evidencepartners.com/resources/forest-plot-generator/ Stand: 05.06.2018