You are prohibited from using or uploading content you accessed through this website into external applications, bots, software, or websites, including those using artificial intelligence technologies and infrastructure, including deep learning, machine learning and large language models and generative AI.
No AccessJournal of UrologyUsers' Guide to the Urological Literature1 Oct 2008

How to Use a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

    View All Author Information


    This article introduces practicing urologists to the critical appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to guide their evidence-based clinical practice.

    Materials and Methods:

    Using a urological clinical case scenario we introduce a 3-step process in evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses by considering 1) the validity of the review results, 2) what the results are, and 3) the extent to which the results can and should be applied to patient care.


    A systematic review seeks to synthesize the medical literature about a specific clinical question using explicit methods to perform a comprehensive literature search, identify and select eligible studies, critically appraise their methods, and judiciously summarize the results considering how they vary with study characteristics. When this summary involves statistical methods, ie a meta-analysis, reviewers can offer a pooled estimate that will have greater precision and will apply more broadly than the individual studies. The quality of the underlying studies, the consistency of results across studies and the precision of the pooled estimate can considerably affect the strength of inference from systematic reviews.


    Valid systematic reviews of high quality studies can increase the confidence with which urologists and patients make evidence-based decisions. Thus, urologists need to recognize the inherent limitations, understand the results and apply them judiciously to patient care.


    • 1 : Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clin Orthop Relat Res2003; 413: 43. Google Scholar
    • 2 : Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement: Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet1999; 354: 1896. Google Scholar
    • 3 Many reviews are systematic but some are more transparent and completely reported than others. PLoS Med2007; 4: e147. Google Scholar
    • 4 : How to perform a literature search. J Urol2008; 179: 1264. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 5 : Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis. Lancet2006; 368: 1171. Google Scholar
    • 6 : Systematic reviews of surgical interventions. Surg Clin North Am2006; 86: 101. Google Scholar
    • 7 : An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Am2002; 84-A: 615. Google Scholar
    • 8 : Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA2003; 290: 495. Google Scholar
    • 9 : Factors associated with the full publication of studies presented in abstract form at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association. J Urol2007; 177: 1084. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 10 : Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses?: Current convictions and controversies. JAMA1993; 269: 2749. Google Scholar
    • 11 : The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA1990; 263: 1385. Google Scholar
    • 12 : Users' guide to the surgical literature: how to use a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Can J Surg2004; 47: 60. Google Scholar
    • 13 : The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ2006; 333: 597. Google Scholar
    • 14 : Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ2001; 323: 101. Google Scholar
    • 15 : Evidence based clinical practice: a primer for urologists. J Urol2007; 178: 775. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 16 : Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3: Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic). CMAJ2004; 171: 1369. Google Scholar
    • 17 : The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews. BMJ2001; 323: 681. Google Scholar
    • 18 : Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 4: Assessing heterogeneity of primary studies in systematic reviews and whether to combine their results. CMAJ2005; 172: 661. Google Scholar
    • 19 : Evidence-based medicine (EBM) in practice: understanding tests of heterogeneity in metaanalysis. Am J Gastroenterol2005; 100: 1221. Google Scholar
    • 20 : Users' guides to the medical literature: VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA1994; 272: 1367. Google Scholar
    • 21 : Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ2003; 326: 219. Google Scholar
    • 22 : When to believe a subgroup analysis. In: Users' Guide to the Medical Literature. Edited by . Chicago: American Medical Association Press2002: 553. Google Scholar
    • 23 : Availability of large-scale evidence on specific harms from systematic reviews of randomized trials. Am J Med2004; 117: 582. Google Scholar
    • 24 : Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ2008; 336: 601. Google Scholar
    • 25 : Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ2001; 323: 42. Google Scholar
    • 26 : Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol2002; 31: 115. Google Scholar
    • 27 : User's guide to the orthopaedic literature: how to use a systematic literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am2002; 84-A: 1672. Google Scholar
    • 28 : Users' Guide to the Medical Literature. Chicago: American Medical Association Press2002. 706. Google Scholar