Manchikanti Laxmaiah, Benyamin Ramsin M, Helm Standiford, Hirsch Joshua A
Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY, USA.
Pain Physician. 2009 Jan-Feb;12(1):35-72.
In recent years, progress and innovations in healthcare are measured by evidence-based medicine (EBM), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, "the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic." In contrast, meta-analysis is the statistical pooling of data across studies to generate pooled estimates of effects. Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggest that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to interpret the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the subject matter is crucial, expertise in review methods is also particularly important. Despite an explosion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the empiric research on the quality of systematic reviews has shown that not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, having highly variable quality, deficiencies in methodologic assessment of the quality of the included manuscripts, and bias. Even then, systematic review of the literature is currently the best, least biased and most rational way to organize, cull, evaluate, and integrate the research evidence from among the expanding medical and healthcare literature. However, a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence continues to persist in part because multiple instruments are available to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Steps in conducting systematic reviews include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement provides a checklist and a flow diagram. The checklist describes the preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of the report of an analysis. This review describes various aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials with a special focus on interventional pain management.
近年来,医疗保健领域的进展和创新是以循证医学(EBM)、系统评价和荟萃分析来衡量的。系统评价的定义是:“通过对特定主题的所有相关研究进行系统收集、严格评价和综合,应用科学策略以限制偏倚。” 相比之下,荟萃分析是对各项研究的数据进行统计合并,以生成效应的合并估计值。荟萃分析通常是系统评价的最后一步。系统评价和荟萃分析需要耗费大量人力,既需要具备主题领域的专业知识,也需要掌握评价方法,而且还必须遵循循证医学的规则,这表明临床医生要有效地解释临床研究结果,一套正式的规则必须补充医学培训和常识。虽然主题领域的专业知识至关重要,但评价方法方面的专业知识也尤为重要。尽管系统评价和荟萃分析数量激增,但关于系统评价质量的实证研究表明,并非所有系统评价都是真正系统的,其质量差异很大,在纳入稿件质量的方法学评估方面存在缺陷,并且存在偏倚。即便如此,目前对文献进行系统评价仍是组织、筛选、评估和整合不断扩充的医学和医疗保健文献中的研究证据的最佳、偏倚最小且最合理的方法。然而,专家与证据之间仍然存在危险的差异,部分原因是有多种工具可用于评估系统评价或荟萃分析的质量。进行系统评价的步骤包括规划、实施、报告和传播结果。《荟萃分析报告质量(QUOROM)声明》提供了一份清单和一个流程图。该清单描述了呈现分析报告的摘要、引言、方法、结果和讨论部分的首选方式。本综述描述了随机试验系统评价和荟萃分析的各个方面,特别关注介入性疼痛管理。