Open AccessExamining the Evidence in Anesthesia Literature: A Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews
Author(s) -
P. Choi,
Stephen H. Halpern,
Nariman Malik,
Alejandro R. Jadad,
Martin R. Tramèr,
Bernhard Walder
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
anesthesia and analgesia/anesthesia and analgesia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.404
H-Index - 201
eISSN - 1526-7598
pISSN - 0003-2999
DOI - 10.1097/00000539-200103000-00029
Subject(s) - medicine , critical appraisal , medline , intensive care medicine , anesthesia , alternative medicine , pathology , political science , law
Systematic reviews are structured reviews that use scientific strategies to reduce bias in the collection, appraisal, and interpretation of relevant studies. We undertook a systematic review of published systematic reviews in perioperative medicine to summarize the areas currently covered by this type of literature, to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews in this field, and to assess some of the methodologic and reporting issues that are unique to systematic reviews. Computerized bibliographic databases, citation review, and hand searches were performed to identify eligible articles. Quality was assessed using the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire. Eight-two systematic reviews were found. Reviews in perioperative medicine tended to evaluate prophylactic or therapeutic interventions. No differences were seen in quality between reviews published in anesthesia and nonanesthesia journals. Nearly half of all systematic reviews had only minor or minimal flaws; however, methods can be improved with expanded search strategies, use of least two reviewers to assess each study, use of validated methods to evaluate quality, and assessment of potential sources of bias.