Skip to main content
Log in

Systematic reviews of research to assess causation: a guide to methods and application

  • Clinical Review
  • Published:
European Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G (2003) Systematic review to support evidence-based medicine, 2003 edn. The Royal Society of Medicine, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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

  4. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dekker GA, Sibai BM (1998) Etiology and pathogenesis of preeclampsia: current concepts. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179(5):1359–1375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hague WM (2003) Homocysteine and pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 17(3):459–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tyagi SC (1998) Homocysteine redox receptor and regulation of extracellular matrix components in vascular cells. Am J Physiol 274(2 Pt 1):C396–C405

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Weed DL (2000) Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related. Int J Epidemiol 29(3):387–390

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

  22. Breslow NE, Day NE (1980) Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume I—the analysis of case-control studies. IARC Sci Publ (32):5–338

  23. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khalid S. Khan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11296-006-0017-x

Keywords

Navigation