Author:
Brugha Traolach S.,Matthews Ruth,Morgan Zoe,Hill Trevor,Alonso Jordi,Jones David R.
Abstract
BackgroundRelatively little is known of the use of systematic review and synthesis
methods of non-randomised psychiatric epidemiological studies, which play
a vital role in aetiological research, planning and policy-making.AimsTo evaluate reviews of psychiatric epidemiological studies of functional
mental disorders that employed synthesis methods such as systematic
review or meta-analysis, or other forms of quantitative review.MethodWe searched the literature to identify appropriate reviews published
during the period 1996 to April 2009. Selected reviews were evaluated
using published review guidelines.ResultsWe found 106 reviews in total, of which 38 (36%) did not mention method
of data abstraction from primary studies at all. Many failed to mention
study quality, publication bias, bias and confounding. In 73 studies that
performed a meta-analysis, 58 (79%) tested for heterogeneity and of
these, 47 found significant heterogeneity. Studies that detected
heterogeneity made some allowance for this. A major obstacle facing
reviewers is the wide variation between primary studies in the use of
instruments to measure outcomes and in sampling methods used.ConclusionsMany deficiencies found in systematic reviews are potentially remediable,
although synthesis of primary study findings in a field characterised by
so many sources of heterogeneity will remain challenging.
Publisher
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health
Cited by
34 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献