Abstract
This chapter describes the basic steps in a systematic review to evaluate causality. These steps are illustrated using a published review concerning the hypothesized mechanism by which homocysteine could lead to preeclampsia. The first and most important step is to specify the problems to be addressed in the form of well-structured questions (Step 1). This step is pivotal as all other aspects of the review follow directly from these questions. The next step is to conduct a thorough literature search to identify studies with the potential to be relevant to the questions you have posed (Step 2). This is necessary to make the review systematic. The third step involves assessing the quality of the relevant studies (Step 3). Furthermore, the study characteristics and results are summarized and any differences between studies are explored (Step 4). Metaanalysis, where possible, should be employed to collate results. Finally, interpretation of the results allows recommendations for practice to be made, in conjunction with discussion of the relevance of the findings (Step 5).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Mignini L, Villar J, Khan KS (2006) Mapping the theories of pre-eclampsia: the need for systematic reviews of mechanisms of the disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194(2):317–321
Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G (2003) Systematic review to support evidence-based medicine, 2003 edn. The Royal Society of Medicine, London
Khan KS, Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J (2001) Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews, 2nd edn. CRD Report Number 4 2001; http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm
Mignini LE, Latthe PM, Villar J, Kilby MD, Carroli G, Khan KS (2005) Mapping the theories of preeclampsia: the role of homocysteine. Obstet Gynecol 105(2):411–425
Villar J, Say L, Gulmezoglu AM, Merialdi M, Lindheimer M, Beltran AP et al (2003) Eclampsia and preeclampsia: a worldwide health problem for 2000 years. In: Critchley H, Maclean A, Poston L, Walker J (eds) Preeclampsia. RCOG, London
Dekker GA, Sibai BM (1998) Etiology and pathogenesis of preeclampsia: current concepts. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179(5):1359–1375
Granger JP, Alexander BT, Llinas MT, Bennett WA, Khalil RA (2002) Pathophysiology of preeclampsia: linking placental ischemia/hypoxia with microvascular dysfunction. Microcirculation 9(3):147–160
Hague WM (2003) Homocysteine and pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 17(3):459–469
Blom HJ, Kleinveld HA, Boers GH, Demacker PN, Hak-Lemmers HL, te Poele-Pothoff MT et al (1995) Lipid peroxidation and susceptibility of low-density lipoprotein to in vitro oxidation in hyperhomocysteinaemia. Eur J Clin Invest 25(3):149–154
Powers RW, Evans RW, Majors AK, Ojimba JI, Ness RB, Crombleholme WR et al (1998) Plasma homocysteine concentration is increased in preeclampsia and is associated with evidence of endothelial activation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179(6 Pt 1):1605–1611
Roberts JM, Taylor RN, Goldfien A (1991) Clinical and biochemical evidence of endothelial cell dysfunction in the pregnancy syndrome preeclampsia. Am J Hypertens 4(8):700–708
Tyagi SC (1998) Homocysteine redox receptor and regulation of extracellular matrix components in vascular cells. Am J Physiol 274(2 Pt 1):C396–C405
Aubard Y, Darodes N, Cantaloube M (2000) Hyperhomocysteinemia and pregnancy—review of our present understanding and therapeutic implications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 93(2):157–165
Roberts JM, Taylor RN, Musci TJ, Rodgers GM, Hubel CA, McLaughlin MK (1989) Preeclampsia: an endothelial cell disorder. Am J Obstet Gynecol 161(5):1200–1204
Raijmakers MT, Zusterzeel PL, Steegers EA, Peters WH (2001) Hyperhomocysteinaemia: a risk factor for preeclampsia? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 95(2):226–228
Picciano MF (2000) Is homocysteine a biomarker for identifying women at risk of complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes? Am J Clin Nutr 71(4):857–858
Vollset SE, Refsum H, Irgens LM, Emblem BM, Tverdal A, Gjessing HK et al (2000) Plasma total homocysteine, pregnancy complications, and adverse pregnancy outcomes: the Hordaland homocysteine study. Am J Clin Nutr 71(4):962–968
Bogardus ST Jr, Concato J, Feinstein AR (1999) Clinical epidemiological quality in molecular genetic research: the need for methodological standards. JAMA 281(20):1919–1926
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D et al (2000) Metaanalysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012
Weed DL (2000) Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related. Int J Epidemiol 29(3):387–390
Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M et al (2003) The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.lri.ca/programs/ceu/oxford.htm
Breslow NE, Day NE (1980) Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume I—the analysis of case-control studies. IARC Sci Publ (32):5–338
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fox, C., Mignini, L. & Khan, K.S. Systematic reviews of research to assess causation: a guide to methods and application. Eur Clinics Obstet Gynecol 1, 251–256 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11296-006-0017-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11296-006-0017-x