Publication:
COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology.

cris.virtual.author-orcid0000-0001-7462-5132
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid0c5b19b9-229c-4307-9a20-e431e6933d4b
cris.virtualsource.author-orcida47a659b-5a23-43fa-86e3-f9401108114c
datacite.rightsopen.access
dc.contributor.authorDekkers, Olaf M
dc.contributor.authorVandenbroucke, Jan P
dc.contributor.authorCevallos Rosero, Myriam
dc.contributor.authorRenehan, Andrew G
dc.contributor.authorAltman, Douglas G
dc.contributor.authorEgger, Matthias
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-08T15:30:47Z
dc.date.available2024-10-08T15:30:47Z
dc.date.issued2019-02-21
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND To our knowledge, no publication providing overarching guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology exists. METHODS AND FINDINGS Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies of Etiology (COSMOS-E) provides guidance on all steps in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, from shaping the research question, defining exposure and outcomes, to assessing the risk of bias and statistical analysis. The writing group included researchers experienced in meta-analyses and observational studies of etiology. Standard peer-review was performed. While the structure of systematic reviews of observational studies on etiology may be similar to that for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there are specific tasks within each component that differ. Examples include assessment for confounding, selection bias, and information bias. In systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, combining studies in meta-analysis may lead to more precise estimates, but such greater precision does not automatically remedy potential bias. Thorough exploration of sources of heterogeneity is key when assessing the validity of estimates and causality. CONCLUSION As many reviews of observational studies on etiology are being performed, this document may provide researchers with guidance on how to conduct and analyse such reviews.
dc.description.numberOfPages24
dc.description.sponsorshipInstitut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)
dc.identifier.doi10.7892/boris.127353
dc.identifier.pmid30789892
dc.identifier.publisherDOI10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742
dc.identifier.urihttps://boris-portal.unibe.ch/handle/20.500.12422/64801
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherPublic Library of Science
dc.relation.ispartofPLoS medicine
dc.relation.issn1549-1277
dc.relation.organizationDCD5A442BECFE17DE0405C82790C4DE2
dc.relation.organizationDCD5A442BDBCE17DE0405C82790C4DE2
dc.subject.ddc600 - Technology::610 - Medicine & health
dc.subject.ddc300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology::360 - Social problems & social services
dc.titleCOSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology.
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
dspace.file.typetext
oaire.citation.issue2
oaire.citation.startPagee1002742
oaire.citation.volume16
oairecerif.author.affiliationInstitut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)
oairecerif.author.affiliationInstitut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.contributor.rolecreator
unibe.date.licenseChanged2019-10-24 19:31:27
unibe.description.ispublishedpub
unibe.eprints.legacyId127353
unibe.journal.abbrevTitlePLOS MED
unibe.refereedtrue
unibe.subtype.articlereview

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
Dekkers PLoSMed 2019.pdf
Size:
831.81 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
File Type:
text
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Content:
published

Collections