SynthesisSystematic reviews2014
Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex and gender as predictors for allograft and patient-relevant outcomes after kidney transplantation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Incidence and Outcomes of COVID-19 in People With CKD: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2021Pooled it
- High admission blood glucose independently predicts poor prognosis in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.Diabetes research and clinical practice · 2021Pooled it
- Association Between the Circulating Level of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Clinical Results After Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping review and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar.Systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Development of type 2 diabetes mellitus in people with intermediate hyperglycaemia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Risk factors for necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates: a systematic review of prognostic studies.BMC pediatrics · 2017Pooled it
- Prognostication and monitoring of mesothelioma using biomarkers: a systematic review.British journal of cancer · 2017Pooled it
- What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrognostic factors are associated with the risk of future health outcomes in individuals with a particular health condition. The prognostic ability of such factors is increasingly being assessed in both primary research and systematic reviews. Systematic review methodology in this area is continuing to evolve, reflected in variable approaches to key methodological aspects. The aim of this article was to (i) explore and compare the methodology of systematic reviews of prognostic factors undertaken for the same clinical question, (ii) to discuss implications for review findings, and (iii) to present recommendations on what might be considered to be 'good practice' approaches.
methodsThe sample was comprised of eight systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, namely whether 'aspirin resistance' (a potential prognostic factor) has prognostic utility relative to future vascular events in patients on aspirin therapy for secondary prevention. A detailed comparison of methods around study identification, study selection, quality assessment, approaches to analysis, and reporting of findings was undertaken and the implications discussed. These were summarised into key considerations that may be transferable to future systematic reviews of prognostic factors.
resultsAcross systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, there were considerable differences in the numbers of studies identified and overlap between included studies, which could only partially be explained by different study eligibility criteria. Incomplete reporting and differences in terminology within primary studies hampered study identification and selection process across reviews. Quality assessment was highly variable and only one systematic review considered a checklist for studies of prognostic questions. There was inconsistency between reviews in approaches towards analysis, synthesis, addressing heterogeneity and reporting of results.
conclusionsDifferent methodological approaches may ultimately affect the findings and interpretation of systematic reviews of prognostic research, with implications for clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.