HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Halligan, S. Articles by Altman, D. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Halligan, S. Articles by Altman, D. G.

Evidence-based Practice in Radiology: Steps 3 and 4—Appraise and Apply Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses¹

¹ From the Department of Specialist Radiology, University College Hospital, Podium Level 2, 235 Euston Rd, London NW1 2BU, England (S.H.); and Cancer Research UK–NHS Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Wolfson College Annexe, Oxford, England (D.G.A.). Received November 15, 2005; revision requested December 21; revision received February 23, 2006; final version accepted March 10. Address correspondence to S.H. (e-mail: s.halligan{at}ucl.ac.uk).

A systematic review is performed in attempt to answer a specific research question by means of objective, unbiased evaluation of all pertinent available evidence. Component primary studies are selected on the basis of quality, and, if possible, their results are combined mathematically by using a process known as meta-analysis. While systematic review and meta-analysis are well-established methods to assess trials of therapeutic effects, they are increasingly more common in studies of diagnostic tests. In this article, the authors describe the benefits of a systematic approach over the traditional narrative review, illustrate the process, and examine some problems that are specific to systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic tests. They also explain how systematic review can help guide methodologic development for future research.

© RSNA, 2007

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. J. Heffernan, J. D. Dodd, and D. E. Malone Cardiac Multidetector CT: Technical and Diagnostic Evaluation with Evidence-based Practice Techniques Radiology, August 1, 2008; 248(2): 366 - 377. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. N. DeMaria Meta-analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 15, 2008; 52(3): 237 - 238. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Hamon, O. Lepage, P. Malagutti, J. W. Riddell, R. Morello, D. Agostini, and M. Hamon Diagnostic Performance of 16- and 64-Section Spiral CT for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Assessment: Meta-Analysis Radiology, June 1, 2008; 247(3): 679 - 686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. S. Medina and C. C. Blackmore Evidence-based Radiology: Review and Dissemination Radiology, August 1, 2007; 244(2): 331 - 336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Hollingworth and J. G. Jarvik Technology Assessment in Radiology: Putting the Evidence in Evidence-based Radiology Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 31 - 38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. E. Malone and M. Staunton Evidence-based Practice in Radiology: Step 5 (Evaluate)--Caveats and Common Questions Radiology, May 1, 2007; 243(2): 319 - 328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]