This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CONTINUING EDUCATION COLUMNJ Korean Med Assoc 2014 January; 57(1): 49-59
pISSN 1975-8456 / eISSN 2093-5951
http://dx.doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2014.57.1.49
체계적 고찰 연구의 개요 49
서론
의학연구에서는 동일한 주제임에도 불구하고 연구에 따라
상반되는 결론을 제시할 수도 있고, 혹은 너무 정보가 많아
어느 것이 올바른 의사결정인지에 대한 판단이 힘든 경우가
발생한다. 체계적 고찰(systematic review)은 이처럼 개인
이 수행하기 어려울 정도로 많은 정보 속에서 근거를 종합하
여 신뢰할 수 있는 객관적 근거를 제공하는 것이다. 고찰 연
구는 과거에는 독창성과 중요성이 떨어지는 영역으로 여겨
졌으나, 일차 연구만으로는 어떤 문제에 결론을 내리기 어려
운 상황에서 문헌을 포괄적으로 검토해서 결론을 내리는 것
이며, 근거중심의학의 등장과 함께 의학 분야의 중요한 연구
분야로 자리 잡았다. 이 글에서는 체계적 고찰의 수행과 해
석 및 향후 방향에 대해 소개하고자 한다.
역사적 전개
의학 분야에서 체계적 고찰을 처음 제시한 사례는 1904년
Systematic review had become one of the important research area in medicine. Systematic review can be demonstrating benefit or harm of an intervention when results of individual studies are inconclusive. While narrative reviews can often include an element of selection bias, systematic reviews typically involve a comprehensive plan and search strategy with the goal of reducing bias by identifying, appraising, and synthesizing all relevant studies on a particular topic and investigation of heterogeneity among included studies. Systematic reviews typically include a meta-analysis component which involves using statistical techniques to synthesize the data from several studies into a single quantitative estimate or summary effect size. Systematic review overcomes the limitation of small sample sizes by pooling results from a number of individual studies to generate a single best estimate. Although systematic reviews are published in academic forums, the Cochrane Collaboration is a widely recognized international and not-for-profit organization that promotes, supports, and disseminates systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy of interventions in the health care field. Systematic review has become a popular and powerful tool. If rigorously conducted, it is essential for evidence-based decision making in clinical practice as well as on the health policy level.
Key Words: Systematic Review; Meta-analysis; Evidence-based medicine; Medical literature search; Publication bias
체계적 고찰 연구의 개요안 형 식·김 현 정 | 고려대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실
An introduction to systematic reviewHyeong Sik Ahn, MD·Hyun Jung Kim, PhD
Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Received: October 20, 2013 Accepted: November 2, 2013
Antiviral prophylaxis Placebo/no treatment Risk ratio Risk ratioStudy or subgroup Events Total Events Total Weight M. H. Random, 95% CI M. H. Random, 95% CI
REFERENCES 1. Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. Br Med J
1904;2:1243-1246.
2. Glass GV. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 1976;5:3-8.
3. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987;106:485-488.
4. Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflec-tions on health services. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press; 1999.
5. Cochrane AL. 1931-1971: a critical review, with particular re- ference to the medical profession. In: Teeling-Smith G, Wells NE; Office of Health Economics. Medicines for the year 2000. London: Office of Health Economics; 1979. p. 1-11.
6. Bero L, Rennie D. The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA 1995;274:1935-1938.
7. Heejeng Son. Assessing methodology quality of Korean sys-tematic review using AMSTAR. Seoul: Korea university; 2012.
8. McAlister FA, Clark HD, van Walraven C, Straus SE, Law-son
FM, Moher D, Mulrow CD. The medical review article revisit-ed: has the science improved? Ann Intern Med 1999;131:947-951.
9. Bravata DM, Olkin I. Simple pooling versus combining in meta-analysis. Eval Health Prof 2001;24:218-230.
10. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 2009;26:91-108.
11. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA; Co- chrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
12. Petitti DB. Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effec-tiveness analysis: methods for quantitative synthesis in medi-cine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999.
13. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Me- thods for meta-analysis in medical research. 1st ed. Chi-chester: Wiley; 2000.
14. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books; 2001.
15. Glasziou P, Irwig L, Bain C, Colditz G. Systematic reviews in health care: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press; 2001.
16. Stangl DK, Berry DA. Meta-analysis in medicine and health policy. Basel: Marcel Dekker; 2000.
18. Colditz GA, Brewer TF, Berkey CS, Wilson ME, Burdick E, Fineberg HV, Mosteller F. Efficacy of BCG vaccine in the prevention of tuberculosis. Meta-analysis of the published literature. JAMA 1994;271:698-702.
19. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 1990;263:1385-1389.
20. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influ-ence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008;358:252-260.
21. Yusuf S, Teo K, Woods K. Intravenous magnesium in acute myocardial infarction. An effective, safe, simple, and inexpen-sive intervention. Circulation 1993;87:2043-2046.
22. ISIS-4: a randomised factorial trial assessing early oral capto-pril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58,050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. ISIS-4 (Fourth International Study of Infarct Survival) Colla-borative Group. Lancet 1995;345:669-685.
23. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151:264-269.
24. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care inter-ventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6:e1000100.
25. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Harbord RM, Schmid CH, Tetzlaff J, Deeks JJ, Peters J, Macaskill P, Schwarzer G, Duval S, Altman DG, Moher D, Higgins JP. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011;343:d4002.
26. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.