Meta-analysis: Subclinical Thyroid Dysfunction and the Risk for Coronary Heart Disease and Mortality

Source:
American College of Physicians
Publisher:
American College of Physicians
Publication date:
19 May 2008

Abstract

 

Specialist Library Quality Assessment: The review addressed a clearly focused question and included appropriate aetiological studies. The search was restricted to a single database, but was extended to all languages and reference lists of studies were followed up. Two reviewers independently screened the abstracts and titles of the search results and eliminated articles not meeting the inclusion criteria. The same 2 reviewers independently evaluated the remaining full-text articles for eligibility on the basis of a predefined set of eligibility criteria.  Tests for heterogeneity were conducted, and sensitivity and subgroup analysis were conducted using random-effects models to explore variations further. The authors acknowledged that individual studies adjusted for different potential confounders, and 1 study provided only unadjusted data. Publication bias or selective reporting of outcomes could not be excluded. Given these limitations and the single database searched, the authors' cautious conclusions are justified.

 

Citation: Ochs N, Auer R, Bauer DC, Nanchen D, Gussekloo J, Cornuz J, Rodondi N. Meta-analysis: Subclinical Thyroid Dysfunction and the Risk for Coronary Heart Disease and Mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jun 3;148(11):832-45.

The link will take you to an abstract of the article. NHS staff wishing to obtain a copy of the full text should contact their health care library.

This article has been selected for inclusion in NICE Evidence Search because it meets the definition of a reliable systematic review for this service. This is a systematic review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and those published by a journal which conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standard. If not published by one of these journals, a systematic review is deemed reliable if the abstract reports the inclusion/exclusion criteria, confirms two or more sources have been searched, and incorporates a synthesis of included studies. A systematic review may also be deemed reliable if it has been appraised and selected by a group of experts for inclusion in an Evidence Update.

Systematic reviews listed as supporting references in Evidence Updates are also included.