Use, application, and interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Article information

Korean J Anesthesiol. 2021;74(5):369-370
Publication date (electronic) : 2021 September 23
doi :
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Corresponding author: Hyun Kang, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 84 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06911, Korea Tel: +82-2-6299-2586 Fax: +82-2-6299-2585 Email:
Received 2021 September 4; Accepted 2021 September 9.

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), which attempt to gather all available empirical evidence, have several strengths, namely, that they focus on a narrow research question; involve a search of the evidence that is comprehensive and systematic; select and evaluate all relevant articles; synthesize data in a clear, explicit, systematic, and rigorous way; investigate and explore sources of heterogeneity; and use the results from multiple studies, thereby providing more precise effect estimates with increased statistical power [1,2]. Furthermore, if SRs and MAs are conducted appropriately, they can provide sufficient statistical power that could only be achieved by large-scale randomized clinical trials. In addition to a summary of the literature relevant to a specific question, SRs and MAs can provide clear answers to questions related to “Who”, “Why”, “How”, “What”, and “When” of the studies.

SRs and MAs are located at the top of the hierarchy of evidence since they provide balanced and transparent evidence, which increases their influence on clinical practice, healthcare, and policy development [14]. Currently, SRs and MAs are used to evaluate uncertain and unanswered questions in areas that require further research, making them an inevitable starting point for the research process. They have also become an integral part of clinical practice guidelines.

However, not all SRs and MAs are conducted and reported appropriately and rigorously. Many SRs and MAs are still conducted and reported in nonsystematic and untransparent ways; thus, they are often biased, conflicted, and misleading [5]. Although the pre-registration of SR and MA protocols is encouraged to improve transparency, only a small portion are registered in open registries, such as PROSPERO, before being conducted [6]. Additionally, some SRs and MAs are carried out by companies that are contracted by sponsors from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. Therefore, if the results are not favorable for the sponsors, they may not wish to publish them, leading to publication bias.

Many of the topics that have been evaluated by SRs and MAs are overlapping and redundant, which leads to a waste of resources. Other SRs and MAs, even if well-conducted, may conclude that the evidence is weak or insufficient and thus not be informative for clinical practice, healthcare, and policy development.

To overcome these criticisms, reporting guidelines for SRs and MAs [7,8] or their protocols [9], appraisal tools [10], and tools for evaluating the quality of primary studies [11] have become standards for planning, conducting, and reporting of SRs and MAs. Furthermore, various methodologies for synthesizing data from primary studies [12,13] and automation tools for searching, screening, and extracting data [14] have been developed and introduced. Currently, the use of these methodologies and tools has even expanded to the synthesis of data from qualitative, observational, and animal studies.

These advances and changes are expected to improve the quality, accountability, and transparency of SRs and MAs. However, many clinicians, researchers, and policymakers are still insufficiently aware of them. In addition, there are plenty of data in the field of anesthesiology that have never been comprehensively and systematically evaluated by SRs and MAs.

The current issue of the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology includes various studies that apply several types of SRs and MAs, including network MAs. I expect this issue to help us anesthesiologists, as researchers and readers, to broaden our understanding and knowledge of SRs and MAs, thereby increasing their use and applicability.


Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.


1. Ahn E, Kang H. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Anesthesiol 2018;71:103–12.
2. Kang H. Statistical considerations in meta-analysis. Hanyang Med Rev 2015;35:23–32.
3. Chalmers I, Fox DM. Increasing the incidence and influence of systematic reviews on health policy and practice. Am J Public Health 2016;106:11–3.
4. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 [Internet]. London: Cochrane [updated 2021 Feb; cited 2021 Sep 4]. Available from
5. Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q 2016;94:485–514.
6. Booth A, Stewart L. Trusting researchers to use open trial registers such as PROSPERO responsibly. BMJ 2013;347:f5870.
7. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2021;10:89.
8. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008–12.
9. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;350:g7647.
10. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017;358:j4008.
11. Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898.
12. Ahn E, Kang H. Concepts and emerging issues of network meta-analysis. Korean J Anesthesiol 2021;74:371–82.
13. Kang H. Trial sequential analysis: novel approach for meta-analysis. Anesth Pain Med (Seoul) 2021;16:138–50.
14. Marshall IJ, Wallace BC. Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Syst Rev 2019;8:163.

Article information Continued