Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface
- 1 Epidemiology is…
- 2 How long is a piece of string? Measuring disease frequency
- 3 Who, what, where and when? Descriptive epidemiology
- 4 Healthy research: study designs for public health
- 5 Why? Linking exposure and disease
- 6 Heads or tails: the role of chance
- 7 All that glitters is not gold: the problem of error
- 8 Muddied waters: the challenge of confounding
- 9 Reading between the lines: reading and writing epidemiological papers
- 10 Who sank the boat? Association and causation
- 11 Assembling the building blocks: reviews and their uses
- 12 Outbreaks, epidemics and clusters
- 13 Watching not waiting: surveillance and epidemiological intelligence
- 14 Prevention: better than cure?
- 15 Early detection: what benefits at what cost?
- 16 A final word…
- Answers to questions
- Appendix 1 Direct standardisation
- Appendix 2 Standard populations
- Appendix 3 Calculating cumulative incidence and lifetime risk from routine data
- Appendix 4 Indirect standardisation
- Appendix 5 Calculating life expectancy from a life table
- Appendix 6 The Mantel-Haenszel method for calculating pooled odds ratios
- Appendix 7 Formulae for calculating confidence intervals for common epidemiological measures
- Glossary
- Index
- References
This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core
11 - Assembling the building blocks: reviews and their uses
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface
- 1 Epidemiology is…
- 2 How long is a piece of string? Measuring disease frequency
- 3 Who, what, where and when? Descriptive epidemiology
- 4 Healthy research: study designs for public health
- 5 Why? Linking exposure and disease
- 6 Heads or tails: the role of chance
- 7 All that glitters is not gold: the problem of error
- 8 Muddied waters: the challenge of confounding
- 9 Reading between the lines: reading and writing epidemiological papers
- 10 Who sank the boat? Association and causation
- 11 Assembling the building blocks: reviews and their uses
- 12 Outbreaks, epidemics and clusters
- 13 Watching not waiting: surveillance and epidemiological intelligence
- 14 Prevention: better than cure?
- 15 Early detection: what benefits at what cost?
- 16 A final word…
- Answers to questions
- Appendix 1 Direct standardisation
- Appendix 2 Standard populations
- Appendix 3 Calculating cumulative incidence and lifetime risk from routine data
- Appendix 4 Indirect standardisation
- Appendix 5 Calculating life expectancy from a life table
- Appendix 6 The Mantel-Haenszel method for calculating pooled odds ratios
- Appendix 7 Formulae for calculating confidence intervals for common epidemiological measures
- Glossary
- Index
- References
Summary
While it is important to be able to read and interpret individual papers, the results of a single study are never going to provide the complete answer to a question. To move towards this we need to review the literature more widely. There can be a number of reasons for doing this, some of which require a more comprehensive approach than others. If the aim is simply to increase our personal understanding of a new area then a few papers might provide adequate background material. Traditional narrative reviews, which give less emphasis to complete coverage of the literature and tend to be more qualitative, have value for exploring areas of uncertainty or novelty, but it is harder to scrutinise them for flaws. In contrast, a major policy decision might require a systematic review of all the relevant literature. We will focus on the systematic approach here, but this can of course be tailored according to need.
What is a systematic review?
Like a primary research paper, an epidemiological review should aim to produce a helpful synthesis of primary data – looking for patterns but not hiding differences – and it should normally offer a formal causal interpretation. Although its primary data units are whole studies rather than individuals, the review process should have the same rigour as its component studies. A systematic review should be a response to a clearly formulated question and involve the identification of all relevant primary research studies that address that question.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Essential EpidemiologyAn Introduction for Students and Health Professionals, pp. 252 - 275Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
, ,
et al. (2009). Epidemiologic evidence on mobile phones and tumor risk. A review. Epidemiology, 20: 639–652.Google Scholar
. (2004). Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, Third Edition: Periodic Updates. AHRQ Publication No
. 04-IP003, January 2004. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
(1996). Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. British Medical Journal, 312: 1215–1218.Google Scholar
, ,
et al. (1998). Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 2 (No. 13): 1–124.Google Scholar
. (1996). Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53297 women with breast cancer and 100239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. The Lancet, 347: 1713–1727.Google Scholar
, , , and (2001). Participation of epidemiologists and/or biostatisticians and methodological quality of published controlled clinical trials. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 55: 569–572.Google Scholar
, , , , and (2009). Time trends in brain tumor incidence rates in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, 1974–2003. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 101: 1621–1724.Google Scholar
, , and Collaborative Group on Pre-Natal Risk Factors and Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer. (2008). Birth size and breast cancer risk: re-analysis of individual participant data from 32 studies. PLoS Medicine, 5: e193.Google Scholar
, , and (2001). Systematic Reviews in Health Care: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
, ,
et al. for the Methods Work Group Third U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2001). Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20 (3S): 21–35.Google Scholar
, ,
et al. (Eds). (2009). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2006, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2006/, based on November 2008 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2009.
, , , and (2009). Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surgical Neurology, 72: 205–214.Google Scholar
, ,
et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. British Medical Journal, 339:b2700 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700.Google Scholar
and (2007). Invited commentary: hormone therapy and risk of coronary heart disease – why renew the focus on the early years of menopause? American Journal of Epidemiology, 166: 511–517.Google Scholar
, ,
et al. (1999). Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies. British Medical Journal, 319: 312–315.Google Scholar
, ,
et al. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet, 354: 1896–1900.Google Scholar
(1997). Evidence-Based Health Care – How to Make Health Policy and Management Decisions
. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
, and (1994). Users' guides to the medical literature VI. How to use an overview. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272: 1367–1371.Google Scholar
, , and (2003). Should we recommend low-fat diets for obesity? Obesity Reviews, 4: 83–90.Google Scholar
, ,
et al. (2001). Body size and ovarian cancer: case–control study and systematic review (Australia). Cancer Causes Control, 12: 855–863.Google Scholar
, , and (1995). Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273: 408–412.Google Scholar
and (2003). Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 327: 1459–1461.Google Scholar
, ,
et al. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. A proposal for reporting. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283: 2008–2012.Google Scholar
. (2009). Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151: 716–726.Google Scholar
. (2004). Screening for breast cancer: point–counterpoint. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33: 43–74.Google Scholar
. (1997). Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington DC: AICR.
. (2007). Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington DC: AICR.
(2000). Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related. International Journal of Epidemiology, 29: 387–390.Google Scholar