Why the study?
Systematic reviews are an important tool of evidence-based surgery, but surgical systematic reviews and trials require a special methodological approach.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Methodological recommendations article
Recommends MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for surgical systematic reviews; extends methodological standards to strengthen evidence synthesis.
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are an important tool of evidence-based surgery. Surgical systematic reviews and trials, however, require a special methodological approach. PURPOSE: This article provides recommendations for conducting state-of-the-art systematic reviews in surgery with or without meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For systematic reviews in surgery, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) should be searched. Critical appraisal is at the core of every surgical systematic review, with information on blinding, industry involvement, surgical experience, and standardisation of surgical technique holding special importance. Due to clinical heterogeneity among surgical trials, the random-effects model should be used as a default. In the experience of the Study Center of the German Society of Surgery, adherence to these recommendations yields high-quality surgical systematic reviews.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kalkum et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: