Systematic reviews and meta-analyses for cardiothoracic surgeons: part 7 - synthesizing evidence
- PMID: 40535206
- PMCID: PMC12170482
- DOI: 10.1007/s12055-025-01940-9
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses for cardiothoracic surgeons: part 7 - synthesizing evidence
Abstract
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are powerful tools within the evidence-based framework, with significant utility in cardiothoracic surgery. Systematic reviews represent the gold standard in evidence synthesis and adhere to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, ensuring a reproducible methodology. They include subtypes such as qualitative and mixed-methods reviews, as well as extrapolations like umbrella reviews. A meta-analysis (plural: meta-analyses) is a statistical technique used to synthesize results from multiple studies, providing a more precise and reliable estimate of an effect size. Together, these approaches help inform clinical practice and shape evidence-based guidelines. However, their findings should be interpreted in light of their limitations.
Keywords: Bayesian; Biostatistics; Evidence-based medicine; Network meta-analysis; Scoping review.
© Indian Association of Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgeons 2025. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interestNone.