Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Campbell, M. K.
Right arrow Articles by MacLeod, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Campbell, M. K.
Right arrow Articles by MacLeod, A. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant (2000) 15: 1950-1955
© 2000 European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association

Evidence-based medicine in nephrology: identifying and critically appraising the literature

Marion K. Campbell,1, Conal Daly2, Sheila A. Wallace1, D. June Cody2, Cam Donaldson3,5, Adrian M. Grant1, Izhar H. Khan2, Paul Lawrence4, Luke Vale1,3 and Alison M. MacLeod2

1 Health Services Research Unit, 2 Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, 3 Health Economics Research Unit, 4 Medical School Library, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK, 5 Departments of Economics and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Canada

Background. Uncertainties about best management of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are reflected in wide variations in practice. Systematic reviews aim to reduce uncertainty by strengthening the evidence base for clinical practice, allowing estimation of the benefits and risks of particular interventions, whilst minimizing the potential for bias. This paper describes the methods and conduct of six systematic reviews of aspects of the management of ESRD, and the yield in terms of trials found.

Methods. Our methodology was based on that recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration (an international initiative set up to perform and disseminate systematic reviews of health care). It involved a systematic search of electronic databases and bibliographic reference lists, together with handsearching of Kidney International for studies relevant to the management of ESRD, followed by a systematic assessment of study quality.

Results. Around 12 000 abstracts were assessed which had been identified from electronic sources. Of these, 2085 (18%) were deemed to be reports of possible randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials relevant to the management of ESRD. Three hundred and forty were relevant to the six specific reviews, and after assessment of the full manuscripts, 39 studies were finally included in our reviews. Reports of a further nine trials, which were identified from other sources, were also included. The broad search adopted allowed the parallel development of a register of trials of all aspects of the management of ESRD.

Conclusions. This study has demonstrated that the methodology of systematic reviews, as promoted by the Cochrane Renal Group, is feasible but has significant resource implications. The development of a register of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to the management of ESRD will facilitate this form of research in the future.

Keywords: end-stage renal disease; randomized controlled trials; systematic reviews

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Marion K. Campbell, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CJASNHome page
A. X. Garg, D. Hackam, and M. Tonelli
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: When One Study Is Just not Enough
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., January 1, 2008; 3(1): 253 - 260.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
M. Petticrew
Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions
BMJ, April 5, 2003; 326(7392): 756 - 758.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.