Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008:2008:295492.
doi: 10.1155/2008/295492.

Strengths and pitfalls of meta-analysis reports in vesicoureteral reflux

K Afshar  1 , A E Macneily
Affiliations

Strengths and pitfalls of meta-analysis reports in vesicoureteral reflux

K Afshar et al. Adv Urol. 2008.

Abstract

There are many ongoing controversies surrounding vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). These include variable aspects of this common congenital anomaly. Lack of evidence-based recommendations has prolonged the debate. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analysis (MA) are considered high-level evidence. The purpose of this review article is to summarize and critically appraise the available SR/MA pertaining to VUR. We also discuss the strength and pitfalls of SR/MA in general. A thorough literature search identified 9 SRs/MAs relevant to VUR. Both authors critically reviewed these articles for contents and methodological issues. There are many concerns about the quality of the studies included in these SRs. Clinical heterogeneity stemming from different patient selection criteria, interventions, and outcome definitions is a major issue. In spite of major advances in understanding different aspects of VUR in the last few decades, there is a paucity of randomized controlled trials in this field.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Confounder.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hearst N, Grady D, Barron HV, Kerlikowske K. Research using existing data: secondary data analysis, ancillary studies, and systematic reviews. In: Hulley SB, editor. Designing Clinical Research. 2nd edition. Philadelphia, Pa, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. pp. 195–212.
    1. Mohammeder D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. The Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1896–1900. - PubMed
    1. Shanon A, Feldman W. Methodologic limitations in the literature on vesicoureteral reflux: a critical review. The Journal of Pediatrics. 1990;117(2, part 1):171–178. - PubMed
    1. Gordon I, Barkovics M, Pindoria S, Cole TJ, Woolf AS. Primary vesicoureteric reflux as a predictor of renal damage in children hospitalized with urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2003;14(3):739–744. - PubMed
    1. Wheeler D, Vimalachandra D, Hodson EM, Roy LP, Smith G, Craig JC. Antibiotics and surgery for vesicoureteric reflux: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2003;88(8):688–694. - PMC - PubMed