Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / What Type of Data Do System Reviews Provide

What Type of Data Do System Reviews Provide

Post a Comment

Comprehensive review of research literature using systematic methods

Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable analytical methods to collect secondary data and analyse it. Systematic reviews are a blazon of evidence synthesis which formulate research questions that are broad or narrow in scope, and place and synthesize data that direct relate to the systematic review question.[one] While some people might acquaintance 'systematic review' with 'meta-analysis', there are multiple kinds of review which can exist defined as 'systematic' which practise not involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically assess enquiry studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively.[two] Systematic reviews are often designed to provide an exhaustive summary of electric current evidence relevant to a research question. For instance, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing testify-based medicine,[3] and a review of existing studies is oftentimes quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new study.

While systematic reviews are often applied in the biomedical or healthcare context, they can be used in other areas where an assessment of a precisely defined subject would be helpful.[iv] Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions,[5] social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative testify syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations.[half dozen] [7]

An agreement of systematic reviews and how to implement them in do is highly recommended for professionals involved in the delivery of wellness care, public health and public policy.

Characteristics [edit]

Systematic reviews can be used to inform decision making in many unlike disciplines, such as bear witness-based healthcare and testify-based policy and practice.[8]

A systematic review can be designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current literature relevant to a research question.

A systematic review uses a rigorous and transparent approach for research synthesis, with the aim of assessing and, where possible, minimizing bias in the findings. While many systematic reviews are based on an explicit quantitative meta-analysis of available data, there are also qualitative reviews and other types of mixed-methods reviews which adhere to standards for gathering, analyzing and reporting testify.[nine]

Systematic reviews of quantitative information or mixed-method reviews sometimes use statistical techniques (meta-analysis) to combine results of eligible studies. Scoring levels are sometimes used to rate the quality of the evidence depending on the methodology used, although this is discouraged by the Cochrane Library.[10] As testify rating can be subjective, multiple people may be consulted to resolve any scoring differences betwixt how show is rated.[11] [12] [13]

The EPPI-Centre, Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Institute have all been influential in developing methods for combining both qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews.[14] [15] [xvi] Several reporting guidelines exist to standardise reporting near how systematic reviews are conducted. Such reporting guidelines are not quality cess or appraisal tools. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) argument[17] suggests a standardized mode to ensure a transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews, and is now required for this kind of research by more than 170 medical journals worldwide.[eight] Several specialized PRISMA guideline extensions take been developed to support item types of studies or aspects of the review procedure, including PRISMA-P for review protocols and PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews.[8] A list of PRISMA guideline extensions is hosted by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of wellness Enquiry) Network.[18]

For qualitative reviews, reporting guidelines include ENTREQ (Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research) for qualitative evidence syntheses; RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) for meta-narrative and realist reviews;[19] [20] and emerge (Improving reporting of Meta-Ethnography) for meta-ethnograph.[xiv]

Developments in systematic reviews during the 21st century included realist reviews and the meta-narrative arroyo, both of which addressed problems of variation in methods and heterogeneity existing on some subjects.[21] [22]

Types [edit]

There are over xxx types of systematic review and the Table one beneath summarises some of these, but it is not exhaustive.[8] [17] Information technology is important to annotation that there is not always consensus on the boundaries and distinctions between the approaches described below.

Table 1: A summary of some of the types of systematic review.
Review blazon Summary
Mapping review/systematic map A mapping review maps existing literature and categorizes information. The method characterizes quantity and quality of literature, including by study design and other features. Mapping reviews can be used to identify the need for principal or secondary inquiry.[viii]
Meta-analysis A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple quantitative studies. Using statistical methods, results are combined to provide evidence from multiple studies. The two types of data by and large used for meta-assay in health enquiry are individual participant information and aggregate data (such equally odds ratios or relative risks).
Mixed studies review/mixed methods review Refers to any combination of methods where one meaning stage is a literature review (frequently systematic). It can also refer to a combination of review approaches such as combining quantitative with qualitative research.[viii]
Qualitative systematic review/qualitative testify synthesis This method for integrates or compares findings from qualitative studies. The method tin can include 'coding' the data and looking for 'themes' or 'constructs' across studies. Multiple authors may improve the 'validity' of the data by potentially reducing individual bias.[eight]
Rapid review An assessment of what is already known about a policy or exercise outcome, which uses systematic review methods to search for and critically appraise existing research. Rapid reviews are still a systematic review, however parts of the process may be simplified or omitted in order to increment rapidity.[23] Rapid reviews were used during the COVID-19 pandemic.[24]
Systematic review A systematic search for data, using a repeatable method. It includes appraising the data (for example the quality of the information) and a synthesis of research data.
Systematic search and review Combines methods from a 'critical review' with a comprehensive search process. This review type is usually used to address wide questions to produce the most advisable testify synthesis. This method may or may not include quality assessment of data sources.[8]
Systematized review Include elements of systematic review process, but searching is often not every bit comprehensive as a systematic review and may not include quality assessments of data sources.

Scoping reviews [edit]

Scoping reviews are singled-out from systematic reviews in several important means. A scoping review is an endeavour to search for concepts by mapping the language and information which surrounds those concepts and adjusting the search method iteratively to synthesize evidence and assess the telescopic of an area of research.[21] [22] This can mean that the concept search and method (including information extraction, organisation and assay) are refined throughout the process, sometimes requiring deviations from whatever protocol or original research programme.[25] [26] A scoping review may frequently be a preliminary stage earlier a systematic review, which 'scopes' out an area of inquiry and maps the language and fundamental concepts to determine if a systematic review is possible or appropriate, or to lay the background for a full systematic review. The goal can be to assess how much data or show is available regarding a certain area of involvement.[25] [27] This process is farther complicated if it is mapping concepts beyond multiple languages or cultures.

As a scoping review should be systematically conducted and reported (with a transparent and repeatable method), some academic publishers categorize them every bit a kind of 'systematic review', which may cause defoliation. Scoping reviews are helpful when it is not possible to acquit out a systematic synthesis of research findings, for instance, when in that location are no published clinical trials in the area of inquiry. Scoping reviews are helpful when determining if it is possible or appropriate to conduct out a systematic review, and are a useful method when an surface area of enquiry is very broad,[28] for example, exploring how the public are involved in all stages systematic reviews.[29]

At that place is nonetheless a lack of clarity when defining the exact method of a scoping review as it is both an iterative procedure and is still relatively new.[30] There have been several attempts to amend the standardisation of the method,[31] [32] [27] [33] for case via a PRISMA guideline extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).[34] PROSPERO (the International Prospective Annals of Systematic Reviews) does non let the submission of protocols of scoping reviews,[35] although some journals will publish protocols for scoping reviews.[29]

Stages [edit]

While there are multiple kinds of systematic review methods, the main stages of a review can be summarised into 5 stages:

Defining the research question [edit]

Defining an answerable question and agreeing an objective method is required to design a useful systematic review.[36] Best exercise recommends publishing the protocol of the review earlier initiating it to reduce the run a risk of unplanned research duplication and to enable consistency between methodology and protocol.[37] Clinical reviews of quantitative data are often structured using the acronym PICO, which stands for 'Population or Problem', 'Intervention or Exposure', 'Comparison' and 'Outcome', with other variations existing for other kinds of enquiry. For qualitative reviews PICo is 'Population or Problem', 'Interest' and 'Context'.

Searching for relevant information sources [edit]

Planning how the review will search for relevant data from research that matches certain criteria is a decisive stage in developing a rigorous systematic review. Relevant criteria can include but selecting research that is good quality and answers the divers question.[36] The search strategy should be designed to recall literature that matches the protocol's specified inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The methodology section of a systematic review should list all of the databases and citation indices that were searched. The titles and abstracts of identified articles can be checked against pre-determined criteria for eligibility and relevance. Each included study may be assigned an objective assessment of methodological quality, preferably by using methods conforming to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement,[xviii] or the loftier-quality standards of Cochrane.[38]

Common data sources used in searches include scholarly databases of peer-reviewed manufactures such every bit MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed as well as sources of unpublished literature such as clinical trial registries and grey literature collections. Cardinal references can likewise be yielded through boosted methods such every bit citation searching, reference list checking (related to a search method called 'pearl growing'), manually searching information sources not indexed in the major electronic databases (sometimes called 'hand-searching'),[39] and directly contacting experts in the field.[twoscore]

To be systematic, searchers must use a combination of search skills and tools such equally database subject field headings, keyword searching, Boolean operators, proximity searching, while attempting to residuum the sensitivity (systematicity) and precision (accuracy). Inviting and involving an experienced information professional or librarian tin notably meliorate the quality of systematic review search strategies and reporting.[41] [42] [43] [44] [45]

[edit]

A visualisation of data beingness 'extracted' and 'combined' in a Cochrane intervention effect review where a meta-analysis is possible[46]

Relevant data are 'extracted' from the information sources according to the review method. It is important to note that the data extraction method is specific to the kind of information, and information extracted on 'outcomes' is only relevant to certain types of reviews. For instance, a systematic review of clinical trials might extract data most how the enquiry was washed (often chosen the method or 'intervention'), who participated in the research (including how many people), how it was paid for (for case funding sources) and what happened (the outcomes).[36] Finer, relevant data being extracted and 'combined' in a Cochrane intervention event review, where a meta-analysis is possible.[46]

Assess the eligibility of the information [edit]

This stage involves assessing the eligibility of data for inclusion in the review, by judging information technology confronting criteria identified at the kickoff stage.[36] This can include assessing if a data source meets the eligibility criteria, and recording why decisions about inclusion or exclusion in the review were made. Software can be used to support the selection process including text mining tools and machine learning, which tin automate aspects of the process.[47] The 'Systematic Review Toolbox' is a community driven, web-based catalogue of tools, to help reviewers chose appropriate tools for reviews.[48]

Analyse and combine the data [edit]

Analysing and combining information tin provide an overall result from all the information. Because this combined effect uses qualitative or quantitative data from all eligible sources of information, it is considered more reliable as it provides better testify, every bit the more data included in reviews, the more than confident we can exist of conclusions. When appropriate, some systematic reviews include a meta-analysis, which uses statistical methods to combine data from multiple sources. A review might use quantitative data, or might use a qualitative meta-synthesis, which synthesises data from qualitative studies. The combination of data from a meta-analysis can sometimes exist visualised. One method uses a forest plot (too called a blobbogram).[36] In an intervention effect review, the diamond in the 'forest plot' represents the combined results of all the data included.[36]

An case of a 'forest plot' is the Cochrane Collaboration logo.[36] The logo is a woods plot of 1 of the first reviews which showed that corticosteroids given to women who are nearly to give birth prematurely can salvage the life of the newborn kid.[49]

Contempo visualisation innovations include the albatross plot, which plots p-values against sample sizes, with approximate upshot-size contours superimposed to facilitate analysis.[l] The contours tin be used to infer outcome sizes from studies that have been analysed and reported in diverse means. Such visualisations may have advantages over other types when reviewing complex interventions.

Assessing the quality (or certainty) of evidence is an of import part of some reviews. Form (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Evolution and Evaluations) is a transparent framework for developing and presenting summaries of evidence and is used to grade the quality of evidence.[51] The Grade-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) is used to provide a transparent method for assessing the confidence of evidence from reviews or qualitative research.[52] In one case these stages are complete, the review may be published, disseminated and translated into practice afterward being adopted equally bear witness.

Automation of systematic reviews [edit]

Living systematic reviews are a relatively new kind of loftier quality, semi-automatic, up-to-date online summaries of inquiry which are updated as new research becomes available.[53] The essential departure betwixt a living systematic review and a conventional systematic review is the publication format. Living systematic reviews are 'dynamic, persistent, online-just evidence summaries, which are updated quickly and often'.[54]

While living systematic reviews seek to maintain electric current show, the automation or semi-automation of the systematic process itself is increasingly beingness explored. While little evidence exists to demonstrate it is equally accurate or involves less transmission attempt, efforts that promote training and using artificial intelligence for the process are increasing.[55] [56]

Enquiry fields [edit]

Medicine and homo wellness [edit]

History of systematic reviews in medicine [edit]

A 1904 British Medical Periodical paper past Karl Pearson collated data from several studies in the Great britain, India and South Africa of typhoid inoculation. He used a meta-analytic approach to amass the outcomes of multiple clinical studies.[57] In 1972 Archie Cochrane wrote: 'It is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organised a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomised controlled trials'.[58] Critical appraisal and synthesis of research findings in a systematic way emerged in 1975 under the term 'meta assay'.[59] [60] Early on syntheses were conducted in broad areas of public policy and social interventions, with systematic research synthesis applied to medicine and health.[61] Inspired by his own personal experiences as a senior medical officeholder in pw camps, Archie Cochrane worked to amend how the scientific method was used in medical evidence, writing in 1971: 'the general scientific trouble with which nosotros are primarily concerned is that of testing a hypothesis that a certain treatment alters the natural history of a illness for the better'.[62] His telephone call for the increased use of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews led to the creation of The Cochrane Collaboration,[63] which was founded in 1993 and named after him, building on the work by Iain Chalmers and colleagues in the area of pregnancy and childbirth.[64] [58]

Current use of systematic reviews in medicine [edit]

Many organisations around the world use systematic reviews, with the methodology depending on the guidelines being followed. Organisations which use systematic reviews in medicine and human health include the National Plant for Health and Care Excellence (Nice, Great britain), the Bureau for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, U.s.a.) and the World Health Organization. Most notable amongst international organisations is Cochrane, a group of over 37,000 specialists in healthcare who systematically review randomised trials of the effects of prevention, treatments and rehabilitation as well as health systems interventions. When appropriate, they likewise include the results of other types of research. Cochrane Reviews are published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews department of the Cochrane Library. The 2015 impact cistron for The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was half-dozen.103, and it was ranked twelfth in the Medicine, Full general & Internal category.[65]

There are several types of Cochrane Review, including:[66] [67] [68] [69]

  1. Intervention reviews appraise the benefits and harms of interventions used in healthcare and health policy.
  2. Diagnostic test accuracy reviews assess how well a diagnostic test performs in diagnosing and detecting a particular illness. For conducting diagnostic test accuracy reviews, free software such equally MetaDTA and Bandage-HSROC in the graphical user interface is available.[70] [71]
  3. Methodology reviews address issues relevant to how systematic reviews and clinical trials are conducted and reported.
  4. Qualitative reviews synthesize qualitative testify to accost questions on aspects other than effectiveness.
  5. Prognosis reviews address the likely course or future effect(southward) of people with a health problem.
  6. Overviews of Systematic Reviews (OoRs) are a new blazon of written report to compile multiple evidence from systematic reviews into a unmarried document that is accessible and useful to serve as a friendly front end for the Cochrane Collaboration with regard to healthcare decision-making. These are sometimes referred to equally 'umbrella reviews'.
  7. Living Systematic reviews are continually updated, incorporating relevant new bear witness as it becomes available.[72] They are a relatively new kind of review, with methods notwithstanding being developed and evaluated. They can be loftier quality, semi-automated, upwards-to-date online summaries of enquiry which are updated as new inquiry becomes available.[73] The essential departure betwixt a 'living systematic review' and a conventional systematic review is the publication format. Living systematic reviews are 'dynamic, persistent, online-only evidence summaries, which are updated rapidly and often'.[74]
  8. Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis that 'accelerates the procedure of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting specific methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner'.[75]
  9. Reviews of complex health interventions in circuitous systems review interventions and interventions delivered in complex systems to improve evidence synthesis and guideline development at a global, national or health systems level.[76]

The Cochrane Collaboration provides a handbook for systematic reviewers of interventions which 'provides guidance to authors for the grooming of Cochrane Intervention reviews.'[38] The Cochrane Handbook also outlines the key steps for preparing a systematic review[38] and forms the basis of two sets of standards for the bear and reporting of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR - Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews).[77] It also contains guidance on how to undertake qualitative evidence synthesis, economic reviews and integrating patient-reported outcomes into reviews.

The Cochrane Library is a collection of databases that contains dissimilar types of independent prove to inform healthcare controlling. It contains a database of systematic review and meta-analyses which summarize and interpret the results of multi-disciplinary enquiry. The library contains the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), which is a journal and database for systematic reviews in health care. The Cochrane Library besides contains the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) which is a database of reports of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials.[78] The Cochrane Library is too bachelor in Spanish.[79]

The Cochrane Library is owned by Cochrane. Information technology was originally published by Update Software and now published by the share-holder owned publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. as part of Wiley Online Library. Royalties from sales of the Cochrane Library are the major source of funds for Cochrane (over £6 1000000 in 2017). At that place are 3.66 billion people around the earth who take access to the Library through national licences (national licences toll £1.v billion[80]) or free provision for populations in depression- and heart-income countries eligible under the WHO's HINARI initiative.[80] Authors must pay an additional fee for their review to be truly open access.[81] Cochrane has an annual income of $10m USD.[82]

Public involvement and denizen science in systematic reviews [edit]

Cochrane has several tasks that the public or other 'stakeholders' tin be involved in doing, associated with producing systematic reviews and other outputs. Tasks tin exist organised as 'entry level' or higher. Tasks include:

  • Joining a collaborative volunteer effort to help categorise and summarise healthcare show[83]
  • Data extraction and risk of bias assessment
  • Translation of reviews into other languages

A recent systematic review of how people were involved in systematic reviews aimed to document the evidence-base of operations relating to stakeholder interest in systematic reviews and to utilise this testify to depict how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.[84] Xxx percent involved patients and/or carers. The Active framework provides a way to consistently depict how people are involved in systematic review, and may exist used equally a way to back up the decision-making of systematic review authors in planning how to involve people in future reviews.[85] Standardised Information on Initiatives (STARDIT) is another proposed way of reporting who has been involved in which tasks during research, including systematic reviews.[86]

While in that location has been some criticism of how Cochrane prioritises systematic reviews,[87] a recent project involved people in helping identify research priorities to inform hereafter Cochrane Reviews.[88] [89] In 2014, the Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership was formalised. This supports the inclusion of relevant evidence within all Wikipedia medical articles, as well equally other processes to help ensure that medical information included in Wikipedia is of the highest quality and accuracy.[90]

Learning resources [edit]

Cochrane has produced many learning resource to help people understand what systematic reviews are, and how to do them. Most of the learning resources can be found at the 'Cochrane Training' webpage,[91] which also includes a link to the volume Testing Treatments, which has been translated into many languages.[92] In addition, Cochrane has created a brusk video What are Systematic Reviews which explains in plain English how they piece of work and what they are used for.[93] The video has been translated into multiple languages,[94] and viewed over 192,282 times (as of August 2020). In addition, an blithe storyboard version was produced and all the video resources were released in multiple versions under Artistic Commons for others to apply and adapt.[95] [96] [97] [98] The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) provides free learning resource to support people to appraise research critically, including a checklist which contains 10 questions to 'help you make sense of a systematic review'.[99] [100]

Social, behavioural and educational [edit]

In 1959, social scientist and social work educator Barbara Wootton published one of the first contemporary systematic reviews of literature on anti-social behavior every bit function of her work, Social Science and Social Pathology.[101] [102]

Several organisations use systematic reviews in social, behavioural, and educational areas of evidence-based policy, including the National Plant for Health and Intendance Excellence (NICE, UK), Social Care Found for Excellence (SCIE, UK), the Bureau for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, Us), the Earth Health Organization, the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), the Joanna Briggs Found and the Campbell Collaboration. The quasi-standard for systematic review in the social sciences is based on the procedures proposed past the Campbell Collaboration, which is one of several groups promoting show-based policy in the social sciences. The Campbell Collaboration: 'helps people brand well-informed decisions past preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews in education, criminal offense and justice, social welfare and international evolution.'[103] The Campbell Collaboration is a sibling initiative of Cochrane, and was created in 2000 at the inaugural meeting in Philadelphia, Us, attracting 85 participants from 13 countries.[104]

Business and economics [edit]

Due to the different nature of research fields outside of the natural sciences, the aforementioned methodological steps cannot easily be applied in all areas of business concern inquiry. Some attempts to transfer the procedures from medicine to business research have been made,[105] including a stride-by-step approach,[106] and developing a standard procedure for conducting systematic literature reviews in business and economics. The Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Group (C-CEMG) works to improve the inclusion of economic testify into Cochrane and Campbell systematic reviews of interventions, to enhance the usefulness of review findings equally a component for decision-making.[107] Such economic evidence is crucial for health technology assessment processes.

International development inquiry [edit]

Systematic reviews are increasingly prevalent in other fields, such every bit international evolution inquiry.[108] Subsequently, several donors (including the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and AusAid) are focusing more than attention and resource on testing the appropriateness of systematic reviews in assessing the impacts of development and humanitarian interventions.[108]

Surroundings [edit]

The Collaboration for Ecology Testify (CEE) works to achieve a sustainable global environment and the conservation of biodiversity. The CEE has a journal titled Ecology Show which publishes systematic reviews, review protocols and systematic maps on impacts of human activity and the effectiveness of direction interventions.[109]

Environmental wellness and toxicology [edit]

Systematic reviews are a relatively recent innovation in the field of ecology wellness and toxicology. Although mooted in the mid-2000s, the offset full frameworks for behave of systematic reviews of environmental health evidence were only published in 2014 by the US National Toxicology Program's Office of Wellness Assessment and Translation[110] and the Navigation Guide at the University of California San Francisco's Programme on Reproductive Health and the Environment.[111] Uptake has since been rapid, with the estimated number of systematic reviews in the field doubling since 2016 and the showtime consensus recommendations on best practice, equally a precursor to a more full general standard, being published in 2020.[112]

Review tools [edit]

A 2019 publication identified 15 systematic review tools and ranked them according to the number of 'disquisitional features' as required to perform a systematic review, including:[113]

  • DistillerSR: a proprietary, paid web awarding
  • Swift Active Screener: a proprietary, paid spider web application
  • Covidence: a proprietary, paid spider web awarding and Cochrane technology platform.
  • Rayyan: a proprietary, complimentary of charge web awarding
  • Sysrev: a proprietary, freemium web application

Limitations [edit]

While systematic reviews involve a highly rigorous approach to synthesizing the testify, they however take several limitations.

Out-dated or risk of bias [edit]

While systematic reviews are regarded as the strongest grade of testify, a 2003 review of 300 studies institute that not all systematic reviews were equally reliable, and that their reporting can exist improved by a universally agreed upon set up of standards and guidelines.[114] A farther study by the same grouping found that of 100 systematic reviews monitored, vii% needed updating at the time of publication, another iv% within a yr, and another 11% within 2 years; this figure was higher in rapidly changing fields of medicine, specially cardiovascular medicine.[115] A 2003 study suggested that extending searches across major databases, perhaps into grey literature, would increase the effectiveness of reviews.[116]

Some authors have highlighted problems with systematic reviews, particularly those conducted by Cochrane, noting that published reviews are often biased, out of date and excessively long.[117] Cochrane reviews take been criticized as not existence sufficiently critical in the selection of trials and including too many of depression quality. They proposed several solutions, including limiting studies in meta-analyses and reviews to registered clinical trials, requiring that original information exist made available for statistical checking, paying greater attention to sample size estimates, and eliminating dependence on only published information.

Some of these difficulties were noted as early on as 1994:

much poor inquiry arises because researchers feel compelled for career reasons to conduct out inquiry that they are sick equipped to perform, and nobody stops them.

DG Altman, 1994 [118]

Methodological limitations of meta-analysis have as well been noted.[119] Some other concern is that the methods used to behave a systematic review are sometimes changed once researchers see the available trials they are going to include.[120] Some website accept described retractions of systematic reviews and published reports of studies included in published systematic reviews.[121] [122] [123] Eligibility criteria must exist justifiable and not capricious (for example, the date range searched) every bit this may impact the perceived quality of the review.[124] [125]

Limited reporting of clinical trials and data from homo studies [edit]

The 'AllTrials' campaign highlights that around half of clinical trials have never reported results and works to improve reporting.[126] This lack of reporting has extremely serious implications for enquiry, including systematic reviews, as information technology is just possible to synthesize data of published studies. In improver, 'positive' trials were twice as probable to be published equally those with 'negative' results.[127] At present, it is legal for for-turn a profit companies to conduct clinical trials and non publish the results.[128] For instance, in the past ten years 8.vii one thousand thousand patients have taken function in trials that have not published results.[128] These factors mean that it is likely there is a significant publication bias, with only 'positive' or perceived favourable results beingness published. A contempo systematic review of manufacture sponsorship and research outcomes ended that 'sponsorship of drug and device studies past the manufacturing visitor leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources' and that the existence of an manufacture bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.[129] Systematic reviews of such a bias may amplify the effect, although it is important to note that the flaw is in the reporting of research more often than not, not in the systematic review method.

Poor compliance with review reporting guidelines [edit]

The rapid growth of systematic reviews in recent years has been accompanied by the bellboy upshot of poor compliance with guidelines, specially in areas such as declaration of registered study protocols, funding source declaration, take a chance of bias data, issues resulting from data abstraction, and clarification of clear report objectives.[130] [131] [132] [133] [134] A host of studies have identified weaknesses in the rigour and reproducibility of search strategies in systematic reviews.[135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] To remedy this issue, a new PRISMA guideline extension called PRISMA-Due south is being developed to improve the quality, reporting, and reproducibility of systematic review search strategies.[141] [142] Furthermore, tools and checklists for peer-reviewing search strategies have been created, such as the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) guidelines.[143]

A central challenge for using systematic reviews in clinical practice and healthcare policy is assessing the quality of a given review. Consequently, a range of appraisal tools to evaluate systematic reviews take been designed. The 2 near popular measurement instruments and scoring tools for systematic review quality cess are AMSTAR 2 (a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews)[144] [145] [146] [147] and ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews); however, these are not appropriate for all systematic review types.[148]

Nearly this article [edit]

This article is adapted from a peer-reviewed version of this article from the WikiJournal of Medicine.

Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT) report [edit]

A STARDIT report near this article tin be found hither:

  • Reviewed STARDIT report version at time of publishing: STARDIT Report: What are systematic reviews? (Q101116128)
  • 'Living' version: STARDIT Report: What are systematic reviews? (Q101116128)

See also [edit]

  • Disquisitional appraisal
  • Further research is needed
  • Horizon scanning
  • Literature review
  • Living review
  • Metascience
  • Peer review
  • Review journal
  • Generalized model aggregation (GMA)
  • Umbrella review

References [edit]

  1. ^ "systematic review". Go-Information technology glossary . Retrieved 18 November 2015.
  2. ^ Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, Waters E (March 2011). "Cochrane Update. 'Scoping the telescopic' of a cochrane review". Journal of Public Health. 33 (1): 147–l. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdr015. PMID 21345890.
  3. ^ "What is EBM?". Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. 2009-eleven-xx. Archived from the original on 2011-04-06. Retrieved 2011-06-17 .
  4. ^ Ader HJ, Mellenbergh GJ, Hand DJ (2008). "Methodological quality". Advising on Inquiry Methods: A consultant'southward companion. Johannes van Kessel Publishing. ISBN978-ninety-79418-02-two.
  5. ^ Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd I (2014). "On the apply of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies". Environmental Science & Policy. 42: 67–77. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.05.010.
  6. ^ Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (PDF). York: Academy of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2008. ISBN978-1-900640-47-3 . Retrieved 17 June 2011.
  7. ^ Petticrew M, Roberts H (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences (PDF). Wiley Blackwell. ISBN978-1-4051-2110-ane. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-06-16.
  8. ^ a b c d east f g h Grant MJ, Booth A (June 2009). "A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies". Health Information & Libraries Journal. 26 (2): 91–108. doi:x.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. PMID 19490148.
  9. ^ Bearman Grand, Dawson P (March 2013). "Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education". Medical Education. 47 (3): 252–lx. doi:10.1111/medu.12092. PMID 23398011. S2CID 11042748.
  10. ^ Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, eds. (2019-09-twenty). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. training.cochrane.org. version 6.1. pp. department 4.6. Retrieved 2020-09-xiv .
  11. ^ Siemieniuk R, Guyatt M. "What is Form?". BMJ Best Practice . Retrieved 2020-08-26 .
  12. ^ Adèr HJ (2008). Advising on Research Methods: A Consultant's Companion. Johannes van Kessel Publishing. ISBN978-xc-79418-01-5.
  13. ^ Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, eds. (2013). Class Handbook . Retrieved 2020-08-26 .
  14. ^ a b Flemming Thou, Booth A, Hannes K, Cargo Thousand, Noyes J (May 2018). "Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance serial-paper vi: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and procedure evaluation show syntheses" (PDF). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 97: 79–85. doi:x.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.ten.022. PMID 29222060.
  15. ^ Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, Flemming Grand, et al. (May 2018). "Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance serial-paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence inside intervention effectiveness reviews" (PDF). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 97: 70–78. doi:x.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.xi.029. PMID 29242095.
  16. ^ "EPPI-Centre Dwelling house". eppi.ioe.ac.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland . Retrieved 2020-06-29 .
  17. ^ a b Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P, Van Der Wilt GJ, et al. (2016). Guidance on choosing qualitative testify synthesis methods for utilize in health technology assessments of circuitous interventions. p. 32. OCLC 944453327.
  18. ^ a b "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement". www.equator-network.org . Retrieved 2020-06-29 .
  19. ^ Wong K, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R (May 2013). "RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews". Periodical of Advanced Nursing. 69 (v): 987–1004. doi:10.1111/january.12092. PMC3558334. PMID 23356699.
  20. ^ Wong Thousand, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp M, Buckingham J, Pawson R (May 2013). "RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses". Periodical of Advanced Nursing. 69 (five): 1005–22. doi:10.1111/jan.12095. PMC3558331. PMID 23356726.
  21. ^ a b Arksey H, O'Malley L (2005). "Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework" (PDF). International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 8: 19–32. doi:x.1080/1364557032000119616. S2CID 12719181.
  22. ^ a b "PRISMA". www.prisma-statement.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  23. ^ "What is a rapid review? Systematic Review Library Guides at CQ University". library.cqu.edu.au. Archived from the original on 2020-09-sixteen. Retrieved 2020-09-16 .
  24. ^ "Dwelling". covidrapidreviews.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  25. ^ a b Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB (September 2015). "Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews". International Periodical of Evidence-Based Healthcare. 13 (3): 141–half dozen. doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050. PMID 26134548. S2CID 8860037.
  26. ^ Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK (September 2010). "Scoping studies: advancing the methodology". Implementation Science. 5 (1): 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69. PMC2954944. PMID 20854677.
  27. ^ a b Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK, Straus South, Tricco Ac, Perrier L, et al. (December 2014). "Scoping reviews: fourth dimension for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 67 (12): 1291–iv. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013. hdl:1807/73365. PMID 25034198.
  28. ^ Nunn JS, Tiller J, Fransquet P, Lacaze P (2019). "Public Interest in Global Genomics Inquiry: A Scoping Review". Frontiers in Public Wellness. 7: 79. doi:ten.3389/fpubh.2019.00079. PMC6467093. PMID 31024880.
  29. ^ a b
  30. ^
  31. ^ Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK (September 2010). "Scoping studies: advancing the methodology". Implementation Scientific discipline. 5 (1): 69. doi:ten.1186/1748-5908-v-69. PMC2954944. PMID 20854677.
  32. ^ Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB (September 2015). "Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews". International Periodical of Evidence-Based Healthcare. 13 (3): 141–half-dozen. doi:ten.1097/XEB.0000000000000050. PMID 26134548. S2CID 8860037.
  33. ^ Arksey H, O'Malley L (2005-02-01). "Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework" (PDF). International Journal of Social Inquiry Methodology. eight (1): 19–32. doi:x.1080/1364557032000119616. S2CID 12719181.
  34. ^ Tricco Air conditioning, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. (October 2018). "PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Caption" (PDF). Register of Internal Medicine. 169 (seven): 467–473. doi:ten.7326/M18-0850. PMID 30178033. S2CID 52150954.
  35. ^ "PROSPERO". Middle for Reviews and Broadcasting. University of York. Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  36. ^ a b c d e f thou "Blithe Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews?". cccrg.cochrane.org. Cochrane Consumers and Advice. Retrieved 1 June 2016.
  37. ^ "PRISMA". Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) . Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  38. ^ a b c Higgins JP, Green Southward (eds.). "Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version v.1.0 (updated March 2011)". The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  39. ^ "5. Handsearching". training.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-09-xiv .
  40. ^ Papaioannou D, Sutton A, Carroll C, Booth A, Wong R (June 2010). "Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques". Health Data & Libraries Journal. 27 (ii): 114–22. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00863.x. PMID 20565552.
  41. ^ Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ (June 2015). "Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in full general internal medicine systematic reviews". Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 68 (6): 617–26. doi:ten.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025. PMID 25766056.
  42. ^ Koffel JB (2015-05-04). "Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the touch of librarian interest: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors". PLOS ONE. ten (five): e0125931. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1025931K. doi:ten.1371/journal.pone.0125931. PMC4418838. PMID 25938454.
  43. ^ Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J (October 2016). "Touch of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews". Periodical of the Medical Library Association. 104 (4): 267–277. doi:10.5195/jmla.2016.139. PMC5079487. PMID 27822147.
  44. ^ Li L, Tian J, Tian H, Moher D, Liang F, Jiang T, et al. (September 2014). "Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian". Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 67 (9): 1001–7. doi:x.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.003. PMID 24841794.
  45. ^ Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH (September 2014). "Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles". JAMA. 312 (ten): 999–1000. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9263. PMID 25203078.
  46. ^ a b "Animated Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews?". cccrg.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-11-24 .
  47. ^ Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston Yard, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, eds. (2019-09-xx). "Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies". Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. training.cochrane.org. version 6.1. section iv.half-dozen. Retrieved 2020-09-14 .
  48. ^ Marshall C, Brereton P (2015-04-27). "Systematic review toolbox: a catalogue of tools to support systematic reviews". Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Technology. EASE '15. Nanjing, Prc: Association for Computing Mechanism: 1–6. doi:10.1145/2745802.2745824. ISBN978-1-4503-3350-4. S2CID 6679820.
  49. ^ "The difference we make". world wide web.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2019-03-08 .
  50. ^ Higgins JP, López-López JA, Becker BJ, Davies SR, Dawson South, Grimshaw JM, et al. (2019-01-01). "Synthesising quantitative bear witness in systematic reviews of complex health interventions". BMJ Global Health. 4 (Suppl ane): e000858. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000858. PMC6350707. PMID 30775014.
  51. ^ "Course working group". www.gradeworkinggroup.org . Retrieved 2019-03-08 .
  52. ^ "GRADE CERQual". www.cerqual.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  53. ^ Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera Eastward (July 2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. 3 (ane): 74. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-74. PMC4100748. PMID 25005128.
  54. ^ Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, Thomas J, Higgins JP, Mavergames C, Gruen RL (February 2014). "Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap". PLOS Medicine. 11 (2): e1001603. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603. PMC3928029. PMID 24558353.
  55. ^ Reddy SM, Patel S, Weyrich M, Fenton J, Viswanathan Grand (October 2020). "Comparing of a traditional systematic review arroyo with review-of-reviews and semi-automation as strategies to update the bear witness". Systematic Reviews. 9 (1): 243. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01450-2. PMC7574591. PMID 33076975.
  56. ^ Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera Eastward (July 2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. 3 (1): 74. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-74. PMC4100748. PMID 25005128.
  57. ^ British Medical Periodical Publishing Group (1904-11-05). "Study on Certain Enteric Fever Inoculation Statistics". BMJ. ii (2288): 1243–1246. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.2288.1243. ISSN 0007-1447. PMC2355479. PMID 20761760. S2CID 30331745.
  58. ^ a b "1.1.two A brief history of Cochrane". community.cochrane.org. Archived from the original on 2019-01-17. Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  59. ^ Drinking glass GV, Smith ML, et al. (Far West Lab. for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco, CA) (1978). Meta-Analysis of Research on the Human relationship of Class-Size and Achievement. The Class Size and Education Project. Washington, D.C.]: Distributed past ERIC Clearinghouse.
  60. ^ "History of Systematic Reviews". Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Center (EPPI-Middle) . Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  61. ^ Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC (July 1992). "Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction". The New England Journal of Medicine. 327 (4): 248–54. doi:10.1056/NEJM199207233270406. PMID 1614465.
  62. ^ Cochrane AL (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on wellness services (PDF). [London]: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. ISBN0-900574-17-viii. OCLC 741462. Archived from the original on 2020-09-16.
  63. ^ Shah HM, Chung KC (September 2009). "Archie Cochrane and his vision for testify-based medicine". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 124 (3): 982–eight. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b03928. PMC2746659. PMID 19730323.
  64. ^ Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2011). Testing treatments : better research for better healthcare (Second ed.). London: Pinter & Martin. ISBN978-1-905177-48-6. OCLC 778837501.
  65. ^ The Cochrane Library. 2015 impact factor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Retrieved 2016-07-20.
  66. ^ Review Director (RevMan) [Computer programme]. Version 5.two. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
  67. ^ "Main page". Cochrane Library.
  68. ^ Silva 5, Grande AJ, Carvalho AP, Martimbianco AL, Riera R (2015). "Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of written report. Part 2". Sao Paulo Medical Journal. 133 (3): 206–17. doi:x.1590/1516-3180.2013.8150015. PMID 25388685.
  69. ^ Silva V, Grande AJ, Martimbianco AL, Riera R, Carvalho AP (2012). "Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?". Sao Paulo Medical Journal. 130 (vi): 398–404. doi:10.1590/S1516-31802012000600007. PMID 23338737.
  70. ^ Freeman SC, Kerby CR, Patel A, Cooper NJ, Quinn T, Sutton AJ (2019). "Development of an interactive spider web-based tool to bear and interrogate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: MetaDTA". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 19 (ane): 81. doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0724-x. PMC6471890. PMID 30999861.
  71. ^ Banno M, Tsujimoto Y, Luo Y, Miyakoshi C, Kataoka Y (2021). "Cast-HSROC: A Web Awarding for Calculating the Summary Points of Diagnostic Exam Accuracy From the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Feature Model". Cureus. 13 (2): e13257. doi:ten.7759/cureus.13257. PMC7953362. PMID 33717762.
  72. ^ "Living systematic reviews". community.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  73. ^ Tsafnat One thousand, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera East (July 2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. iii (one): 74. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-74. PMC4100748. PMID 25005128.
  74. ^ Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, Thomas J, Higgins JP, Mavergames C, Gruen RL (February 2014). "Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap". PLOS Medicine. xi (2): e1001603. doi:x.1371/periodical.pmed.1001603. PMC3928029. PMID 24558353.
  75. ^ "Cochrane's piece of work on Rapid Reviews in response to COVID-nineteen". www.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  76. ^ Norris SL, Rehfuess EA, Smith H, Tunçalp Ö, Grimshaw JM, Ford NP, Portela A (2019-01-01). "Complex health interventions in complex systems: improving the process and methods for evidence-informed health decisions". BMJ Global Health. 4 (Suppl i): e000963. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000963. PMC6350736. PMID 30775018.
  77. ^ "Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR)". Cochrane. Retrieved 6 October 2014.
  78. ^ "Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (Fundamental)". Cochrane Library . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  79. ^ "Revisiones Cochrane". Cochrane Library (in Castilian). Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  80. ^ a b "Cochrane's Time to come Publishing and Open Access Arrangements". Cochrane.org. 2019-07-02. Archived from the original on 2019-07-02.
  81. ^ "Open access options for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews". Cochrane . Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  82. ^ Newman M (January 2019). "Has Cochrane lost its way?". BMJ. 364: k5302. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5302. PMID 30606713. S2CID 58623482.
  83. ^ "Cochrane crowd". oversupply.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2019-02-14 .
  84. ^
  85. ^
  86. ^ [Pre-impress] Nunn J, Shafee T, Chang Southward, Stephens R, Elliott J, Oliver S, John D, Smith Chiliad, Orr North. "Standardised Data on Initiatives - STARDIT: Alpha Version". osf.io. doi:10.31219/osf.io/5q47h. S2CID 242815262. Retrieved 2020-08-20 .
  87. ^ Newman Thou (2019-01-03). "Has Cochrane lost its way?". BMJ. 364: k5302. doi:ten.1136/bmj.k5302. PMID 30606713. S2CID 58623482.
  88. ^ Synnot AJ, Tong A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan M, et al. (April 2019). "Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health advice and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders". Health Inquiry Policy and Systems. 17 (one): 45. doi:x.1186/s12961-019-0444-z. PMC6489310. PMID 31036016.
  89. ^ Synnot A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan M, Horvat 50, et al. (May 2018). "Enquiry priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders". BMJ Open up. 8 (5): e019481. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019481. PMC5942413. PMID 29739780.
  90. ^ "The Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership in 2016". Cochrane . Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  91. ^ "Welcome". training.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2019-06-25 .
  92. ^ "Testing Treatments". Cochrane Training. 2019-06-25. Archived from the original on 2019-06-25. Retrieved 2019-06-25 .
  93. ^ Cochrane (2016-01-27), What are systematic reviews?, archived from the original on 2021-12-21, retrieved 2019-06-25
  94. ^ Successful multi-language gratuitous online blithe learning resources. Abstracts of the 24th Cochrane Colloquium; 23–27 October 2016, Seoul, Republic of korea. Wiley. 2016-10-23. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD201602.
  95. ^ "Creating a successful online blitheness resources: the 'what are systematic reviews?' video". Cochrane Community. 2019-06-25. Archived from the original on 2019-06-25. Retrieved 2019-06-25 .
  96. ^ "Animated Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews?". cccrg.cochrane.org. Cochrane Consumers and Communication. Retrieved one June 2016.
  97. ^ Nunn J, Synnot A, Mcdonald S, Allen M, Hill S (2015). "Building partnerships with the public by learning virtually Cochrane bear witness". 23rd Cochrane Colloquium 2015. doi:ten.13140/RG.2.one.2182.1922. Archived from the original on 2015-11-09.
  98. ^ Nunn J, Hill S. "What are systematic reviews?". Retrieved 2020-08-twenty .
  99. ^ "CASP Checklists". Critical Appraisal Skills Plan . Retrieved 2020-08-21 .
  100. ^ "CASP Systematic Review Checklist" (PDF). casp-uk.net. 2020-08-21. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-08-21. Retrieved 2020-08-21 .
  101. ^ Gough, David; Oliver, Sandy; Thomas, James (2017). An Introduction to Systematic Reviews (2nd ed.). London: Sage. p. XIII.
  102. ^ Oakley, Ann (2011). A critical woman : Barbara Wootton, social science and public policy in the twentieth century. London: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN9781849664707.
  103. ^ "Virtually Us". The Campbell Collaboration. Archived from the original on February iii, 2014. Retrieved March 26, 2014.
  104. ^ "History of the Campbell Collaboration". Campbell Collaboration . Retrieved 2021-04-fifteen . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-condition (link)
  105. ^ Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003). "Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management cognition by means of systematic review". British Journal of Direction. 14 (3): 207–222. CiteSeerXx.1.1.622.895. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
  106. ^ Durach CF, Kembro J, Wieland A (2017). "A New Paradigm for Systematic Literature Reviews in Supply Chain Management". Journal of Supply Chain Management. 53 (4): 67–85. doi:10.1111/jscm.12145.
  107. ^ "About usa". methods.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  108. ^ a b Hagen-Zanker J, Duvendack M, Mallett R, Slater R, Carpenter South, Tromme M (January 2012). "Making systematic reviews work for international development research". Overseas Development Constitute.
  109. ^ "Ecology Bear witness: Reliable testify, informed decisions, meliorate environment". www.environmentalevidence.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  110. ^ Rooney, Andrew A.; Boyles, Abee L.; Wolfe, Mary S.; Bucher, John R.; Thayer, Kristina A. (2014). "Systematic Review and Testify Integration for Literature-Based Environmental Health Science Assessments". Environmental Wellness Perspectives. 122 (vii): 711–718. doi:10.1289/ehp.1307972. PMC4080517. PMID 24755067.
  111. ^ Woodruff, Tracey J.; Sutton, Patrice (2014). "The Navigation Guide Systematic Review Methodology: A Rigorous and Transparent Method for Translating Environmental Wellness Scientific discipline into Better Health Outcomes". Environmental Wellness Perspectives. 122 (10): 1007–1014. doi:ten.1289/ehp.1307175. PMC4181919. PMID 24968373.
  112. ^ Whaley, Paul; Aiassa, Elisa; Beausoleil, Claire; Beronius, Anna; Bilotta, Gary; Boobis, Alan; De Vries, Rob; Hanberg, Annika; Hoffmann, Sebastian; Chase, Neil; Kwiatkowski, Carol F.; Lam, Juleen; Lipworth, Steven; Martin, Olwenn; Randall, Nicola; Rhomberg, Lorenz; Rooney, Andrew A.; Schünemann, Holger J.; Wikoff, Daniele; Wolffe, Taylor; Halsall, Crispin (2020). "Recommendations for the acquit of systematic reviews in toxicology and environmental health enquiry (COSTER)". Surround International. 143: 105926. doi:ten.1016/j.envint.2020.105926. PMID 32653802. S2CID 220502683.
  113. ^ Van der Mierden S, Tsaioun K, Bleich A, Leenaars CH (2019). "Software tools for literature screening in systematic reviews in biomedical enquiry". Altex. 36 (three): 508–517. doi:10.14573/altex.1902131. PMID 31113000.
  114. ^ Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (March 2007). "Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews". PLOS Medicine. iv (iii): e78. doi:10.1371/periodical.pmed.0040078. PMC1831728. PMID 17388659.
  115. ^ Shojania KG, Sampson One thousand, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D (August 2007). "How rapidly do systematic reviews get out of date? A survival analysis". Register of Internal Medicine. 147 (4): 224–33. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179. PMID 17638714. S2CID 3988259.
  116. ^ Savoie I, Helmer D, Green CJ, Kazanjian A (2003). "Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search". International Journal of Technology Assessment in Wellness Care. xix (1): 168–78. doi:10.1017/S0266462303000163. PMID 12701949. S2CID 42494895.
  117. ^ Roberts I, Ker K, Edwards P, Beecher D, Manno D, Sydenham E (June 2015). "The cognition system underpinning healthcare is not fit for purpose and must modify" (PDF). BMJ. 350: h2463. doi:10.1136/bmj.h2463. PMID 26041754. S2CID 33523612.
  118. ^ Altman DG (January 1994). "The scandal of poor medical enquiry". BMJ. 308 (6924): 283–4. doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283. PMC2539276. PMID 8124111.
  119. ^ Shapiro Due south (November 1994). "Meta-analysis/Shmeta-assay". American Journal of Epidemiology. 140 (ix): 771–8. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117324. PMID 7977286.
  120. ^ Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan Thou, Kramer Due south, Green Due south, Forbes A (October 2014). "Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015 (10): MR000035. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2. PMC8191366. PMID 25271098.
  121. ^ Roberts I. "Retraction Of Scientific Papers For Fraud Or Bias Is Just The Tip Of The Iceberg". IFL Science! . Retrieved 29 June 2015.
  122. ^ Ferguson C (2015-04-02). "Retraction and republication for Lancet Resp Med tracheostomy paper". Retraction Spotter . Retrieved 29 June 2015.
  123. ^ Ferguson C (2015-03-26). "BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for simulated peer review". Retraction Lookout.
  124. ^ Flinders University Library. "Search Smart: Systematic Reviews: Methodology overview". flinders.libguides.com . Retrieved 2020-09-sixteen .
  125. ^ Pursell E, McCrae Northward (2020). How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review: a guide for healthcare researchers, practitioners and students. Springer Nature. ISBN978-three-030-49672-ii. OCLC 1182880684.
  126. ^ "One-half of all clinical trials have never reported results". AllTrials. 2015-08-20. Retrieved 2019-03-08 .
  127. ^ Vocal F, Parekh Southward, Hooper Fifty, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. (February 2010). "Broadcasting and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases". Health Engineering Assessment. fourteen (8): iii, nine–xi, 1–193. doi:x.3310/hta14080. PMID 20181324.
  128. ^ a b Iacobucci Grand (November 2016). "Nearly half of all trials run by major sponsors in past decade are unpublished". BMJ. 355: i5955. doi:10.1136/bmj.i5955. PMID 27815253. S2CID 43604202.
  129. ^ Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero Fifty, et al. (Cochrane Methodology Review Group) (February 2017). "Industry sponsorship and research outcome". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017 (2): MR000033. doi:ten.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3. PMC8132492. PMID 28207928.
  130. ^ Pidgeon TE, Wellstead K, Sagoo H, Jafree DJ, Fowler AJ, Agha RA (Oct 2016). "An assessment of the compliance of systematic review articles published in craniofacial surgery with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review". Periodical of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. 44 (10): 1522–1530. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.018. PMID 27575881.
  131. ^ Lee SY, Sagoo H, Whitehurst K, Wellstead Thousand, Fowler AJ, Agha RA, Orgill D (2016-03-01). "Compliance of Systematic Reviews in Plastic Surgery With the PRISMA Argument". JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery. eighteen (2): 101–five. doi:ten.1001/jamafacial.2015.1726. PMID 26719993.
  132. ^ Akhigbe T, Zolnourian A, Bulters D (May 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews articles in encephalon arteriovenous malformation with PRISMA argument guidelines: Review of literature". Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 39: 45–48. doi:x.1016/j.jocn.2017.02.016. PMID 28246008. S2CID 27738264.
  133. ^ Lee SY, Sagoo H, Farwana R, Whitehurst Thousand, Fowler A, Agha R (December 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 17 (1): 178. doi:ten.1186/s12874-017-0450-1. PMC5745614. PMID 29281981.
  134. ^ Due east JY, Saldanha IJ, Canner J, Schmid CH, Le JT, Li T (May 2020). "Arbitrament rather than experience of information abstraction matters more in reducing errors in abstracting information in systematic reviews". Research Synthesis Methods. eleven (3): 354–362. doi:x.1002/jrsm.1396. PMID 31955502. S2CID 210829764.
  135. ^ Koffel JB, Rethlefsen ML (2016-09-26). Thombs BD (ed.). "Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cantankerous-Sectional Study". PLOS I. 11 (ix): e0163309. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1163309K. doi:ten.1371/journal.pone.0163309. PMC5036875. PMID 27669416.
  136. ^ Yoshii A, Plaut DA, McGraw KA, Anderson MJ, Wellik KE (January 2009). "Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 97 (1): 21–9. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.97.ane.004. PMC2605027. PMID 19158999.
  137. ^ Toews LC (July 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinarian journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines". Periodical of the Medical Library Association. 105 (three): 233–239. doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.246. PMC5490700. PMID 28670210.
  138. ^ Mullins MM, DeLuca JB, Crepaz N, Lyles CM (June 2014). "Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): are the searches conspicuously explained, systematic and reproducible?". Research Synthesis Methods. five (2): 116–30. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1098. PMC5861495. PMID 26052651.
  139. ^ Briscoe Due south (March 2018). "A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews". Inquiry Synthesis Methods. ix (1): 89–99. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1275. PMID 29065246.
  140. ^ Golder Southward, Loke Y, McIntosh HM (May 2008). "Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of agin furnishings". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61 (five): 440–8. doi:ten.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005. PMID 18394536.
  141. ^ Rethlefsen Thou, Ayala AP, Kirtley South, Koffel J, Waffenschmidt South (2019-03-04). "PRISMA-S PRISMA Search Reporting Extension". doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/YGN9W.
  142. ^ [Pre-print] Rethlefsen G, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel J. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis Search Extension (PRISMA-South) 2019: Caption and Elaboration". osf.io. doi:ten.31219/osf.io/sfc38. S2CID 243613770. Retrieved 2019-03-20 .
  143. ^ McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo Due east, Foerster V, Lefebvre C (July 2016). "Press Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 75: 40–6. doi:x.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021. PMID 27005575.
  144. ^ Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells Chiliad, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. (September 2017). "AMSTAR 2: a disquisitional appraisement tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or not-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both". BMJ. 358: j4008. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008. PMC5833365. PMID 28935701.
  145. ^ Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. (February 2007). "Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews". BMC Medical Inquiry Methodology. 7 (one): 10. doi:x.1186/1471-2288-7-ten. PMC1810543. PMID 17302989.
  146. ^ Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson East, Grimshaw J, et al. (October 2009). "AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 62 (10): 1013–twenty. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.ten.009. PMID 19230606.
  147. ^ Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku Thou, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. (September 2017). "AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or not-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both". BMJ. 358: j4008. doi:ten.1136/bmj.j4008. PMC5833365. PMID 28935701.
  148. ^ Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al. (Jan 2016). "ROBIS: A new tool to appraise gamble of bias in systematic reviews was developed". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 69: 225–34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005. PMC4687950. PMID 26092286.
  • This article was submitted to WikiJournal of Medicine for external academic peer review in 2019 (reviewer reports). The updated content was reintegrated into the Wikipedia folio under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license (2020). The version of record as reviewed is:

Jack Nunn; et al. (9 November 2020). "What are Systematic Reviews?" (PDF). WikiJournal of Medicine. 7 (1): v. doi:10.15347/WJM/2020.005. ISSN 2002-4436. Wikidata Q99440266.

External links [edit]

  • Systematic Review Tools — Search and list of systematic review software tools
  • Cochrane Collaboration
  • MeSH: Review Literature—articles about the review process
  • MeSH: Review [Publication Blazon] - limit search results to reviews
  • Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Argument, "an prove-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses"
  • PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation
  • Blithe Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews? - Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group
  • Sysrev - a free platform with open access systematic reviews.

tylorhicaltisee38.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review

Post a Comment for "What Type of Data Do System Reviews Provide"