A nephrology guide to reading and using systematic reviews of observational studies
Pietro Ravani1, Paul E Ronksley1, Matthew T James1
1O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract:
Systematic reviews are an ideal way of summarizing evidence from primary studies. While systematic reviews of randomized trials are broadly used to summarize benefits and harms of interventions, systematic reviews of observational studies are useful to summarize data on prevalence of risk factors in a population, distribution of outcomes or associations of different risk factors with outcomes. Also, systematic reviews can be useful to clarify potential reasons for conflicting data found in primary studies and explore sources of heterogeneity (variation in primary study data) to better understand epidemiological data and generate hypotheses for candidate interventions to improve outcomes. Summarizing data from observational studies in systematic reviews is a powerful tool to distil existing prognostic evidence in specific settings and inform patients and healthcare providers. In this article, we describe how to critically appraise the methods, interpret the results and apply the findings of a systematic review of observational (prognostic) studies.
Related Concept Videos
Observational Studies
There are three types of observational studies – Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional.
Prospective Study
Prospective studies, also known as longitudinal or cohort studies, are carried out by collecting future data from groups sharing similar characteristics. One...
Acute Kidney Injury IV: Diagnostic Studies and Prevention
Nephrotic Syndrome II : Assessment and Medical Management
Chronic Kidney Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Chronic Kidney Disease II: Clinical Manifestations
Imaging Studies II: Ultrasonography


