818 844
[4]
Borzak S, Ridker PM. Discordance between meta-analyses and large-scale randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 1995;123:873–7.
[5]
Flather MD, Farkouh ME, Pogue JM, Yusuf S. Strengths and limita- tions of meta-analysis: larger studies may be more reliable. Con- trolled Clinical Trials 1997;18:568–79.[6]
DerSimonian R, Levine RJ. Resolving discrepancies between a meta- analysis and a subsequent large controlled trial. JAMA 1999;282: 644–70.[7]
LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F. Dis- crepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large random- ized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1997;337:536–42.[8]
Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G, et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo- controlled trial. Lancet 2015;386:341–9.[9]
Kim SP, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, et al. Comparative effectiveness for survival and renal function of partial and radical nephrectomy for localized renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 2012;188:51–7.[10]
Van Poppel H, Da Pozzo L, Albrecht W, et al. Prospective, random- ised EORTC intergroup phase 3 study comparing the oncologic outcome of elective nephron-sparing surgery and radical nephrec- tomy for low-stage renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 2011;59:543–52.[11]
Byar DP, Simon RM, Friedewald WT, et al. Randomized clinical trials—perspectives on some recent ideas. N Engl J Med 1976;295: 74–80.[12]
Sibbald B, Roland M. Understanding controlled trials: why are randomized controlled trials important? Br Med J 1998;316:201.[13]
Hansson L, Hedner T, Dahlo¨f B. Prospective Randomized Open Blinded End-point (PROBE) study. A novel design for intervention trials. Blood Press 1992;1:113–9.
[14]
Julious SA. Sample sizes for clinical trials. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2009.[15]
Armijo-Olivo S, Warren S, Magee D. Intention to treat analysis, compliance, drop-outs and how to deal with missing data in clinical research: a review. Phys Ther Rev 2009;14:36–49.
[16]
Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: ‘‘To whom do the results of this trial apply?’’ Lancet 2005;365:82–93.
[17]
Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996;125:605–13.
[18] Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic
reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collabora-
tion; 2011.
http://handbook.cochrane.org.
[19]
Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. Br Med J 1997;315:1533–7.
[20]
Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. Br Med J 2010;340:c221.
[21] Tudur Smith C, Marcucci M, Nolan SJ, et al. Individual participant
data meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses based on aggre-
gate data. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;9:MR000007.
http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000007.pub3 .[22]
Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. Br Med J 1994;309:597–9.
[23]
Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, et al., editors.Clinical practice guidelines we can trust.. National Academies Press: Washington, DC; 2011.[24]
Higgins J, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta- analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–58.
[25]
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring incon- sistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J 2003;327:557–60.
[26]
Thornton A, Lee P. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:207–16.
[27]
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta- analysis detected by a simple graphical test. Br Med J 1997;315: 629–34.
[28]
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of system- atic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.
[29]
Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of system- atic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1013–20.[30]
Diekemper RL, Ireland BK, Merz LR. Development of the Documen- tation and Appraisal Review Tool for systematic reviews. World J Meta Anal 2015;3:142–50.
[31]
Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD. Investigating and dealing with publi- cation and other biases in meta-analysis. Br Med J 2001;323:101–5.
[32]
Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 2002;21:1559–73.
[33]
Thompson SG, Higgins JPT. Can meta-analysis help target inter- ventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Lancet 2005;365: 341–6.[34]
Hollingsworth JM, Rogers MA, Kaufman SR, et al. Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2006;368: 1171–9.
[35]
Campschroer T, Zhu Y, Duijvesz D, Grobbee DE, Lock MTWT. Alpha blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;4:CD008509.
[36]
Seitz C, Liatsikos E, Porpiglia F, Tiselius H-G, Zwergel U. Medical therapy to facilitate the passage of stones: what is the evidence. Eur Urol 2009;56:455–71.
[37]
Singh A, Alter HJ, Littlepage A. A systematic review of medical therapy to facilitate passage of ureteral calculi. Ann Emerg Med 2007;50:552–63.
[38] EAU/AUA Nephrolithiasis Guideline Panel. 2007 guideline for the
management of ureteral calculi.
www.auanet.org/education/ guidelines/ureteral-calculi.cfm[39]
Schulz K, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with esti- mates of treatment effects in controlled clinical trials. JAMA 1995;273:408–12.[40] Driessen E, Hollon SD, Bockting CL, Cuijpers P, Turner EH. Does
publication bias inflate the apparent efficacy of psychological
treatment for major depressive disorder? A systematic review
and meta-analysis of US National Institutes of Health–funded trials.
PLoS One 2015;10:e0137864.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0137864.
[41]
Scosyrev E, Messing EM, Sylvester R, Campbell S, Van Poppel H. Renal function after nephron-sparing surgery versus radical ne- phrectomy: results from EORTC randomized trial 30904. Eur Urol 2014;65:372–7.
[42]
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consen- sus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J 2008;336:924–6.
[43]
MacLennan S, Imamura M, Lapitan MC, et al. Systematic review of oncological outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer. Eur Urol 2012;61:972–93.[44]
Tan HJ, Norton EC, Ye Z, Hafez KS, Gore JL, Miller DC. Long-term survival following partial versus radical nephrectomy among older patients with early-stage kidney cancer. JAMA 2012;307:1629–35.
[45]
Roos FC, Steffens S, Junker K, et al. Survival advantage of partial over radical nephrectomy in patients presenting with localized renal cell carcinoma. BMC Cancer 2014;14:372–8.
[46]
Capitanio U, Terrone C, Antonelli A, et al. Nephron-sparing tech- niques independently decrease the risk of cardiovascular events relative to radical nephrectomy in patients with a T1a–T1b renalE U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 1 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 8 1 1 – 8 1 9
818