Home  ›  What Type of Research Design Is a Systematic Review

What Type of Research Design Is a Systematic Review

Written By Tuesday, April 19, 2022 Add Comment Edit

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 information technology. Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis which formulate research questions that are wide or narrow in telescopic, and identify and synthesize data that straight relate to the systematic review question.[one] While some people might associate 'systematic review' with 'meta-analysis', there are multiple kinds of review which can be defined as 'systematic' which do non involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically assess enquiry studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively.[2] Systematic reviews are oft designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current evidence relevant to a research question. For example, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an of import way of informing evidence-based medicine,[3] and a review of existing studies is frequently quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new report.

While systematic reviews are often practical in the biomedical or healthcare context, they can be used in other areas where an cess of a precisely defined subject would be helpful.[4] Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions,[5] social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations.[6] [vii]

An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice 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 different disciplines, such as evidence-based healthcare and testify-based policy and do.[8]

A systematic review tin exist 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 information, there are too qualitative reviews and other types of mixed-methods reviews which adhere to standards for gathering, analyzing and reporting evidence.[nine]

Systematic reviews of quantitative data or mixed-method reviews sometimes apply 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 prove rating can be subjective, multiple people may be consulted to resolve any scoring differences between how evidence is rated.[11] [12] [13]

The EPPI-Middle, Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Constitute have all been influential in developing methods for combining both qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews.[xiv] [15] [16] Several reporting guidelines be to standardise reporting almost how systematic reviews are conducted. Such reporting guidelines are not quality assessment or appraisal tools. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) argument[17] suggests a standardized way 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.[8] Several specialized PRISMA guideline extensions have been adult to back up particular 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 past the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of wellness Research) 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 Bear witness Syntheses: Evolving Standards) for meta-narrative and realist reviews;[xix] [twenty] and emerge (Improving reporting of Meta-Ethnography) for meta-ethnograph.[14]

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

Types [edit]

In that location are over thirty types of systematic review and the Table 1 below summarises some of these, but it is non exhaustive.[viii] [17] It is important to note that there is non 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 type Summary
Mapping review/systematic map A mapping review maps existing literature and categorizes data. The method characterizes quantity and quality of literature, including by written report design and other features. Mapping reviews tin be used to place the demand for chief or secondary research.[eight]
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 prove from multiple studies. The ii types of information generally used for meta-analysis in health research are individual participant information and aggregate information (such as odds ratios or relative risks).
Mixed studies review/mixed methods review Refers to any combination of methods where i significant stage is a literature review (often systematic). It tin can also refer to a combination of review approaches such equally combining quantitative with qualitative inquiry.[8]
Qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis This method for integrates or compares findings from qualitative studies. The method tin can include 'coding' the information and looking for 'themes' or 'constructs' across studies. Multiple authors may improve the 'validity' of the data by potentially reducing private bias.[8]
Rapid review An assessment of what is already known nigh a policy or exercise consequence, which uses systematic review methods to search for and critically appraise existing inquiry. Rapid reviews are still a systematic review, however parts of the procedure may be simplified or omitted in order to increase rapidity.[23] Rapid reviews were used during the COVID-nineteen pandemic.[24]
Systematic review A systematic search for information, using a repeatable method. It includes appraising the data (for example the quality of the data) and a synthesis of research data.
Systematic search and review Combines methods from a 'disquisitional review' with a comprehensive search process. This review type is usually used to address wide questions to produce the most advisable evidence synthesis. This method may or may not include quality assessment of data sources.[eight]
Systematized review Include elements of systematic review process, but searching is often not equally 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 ways. A scoping review is an attempt to search for concepts by mapping the language and data which surrounds those concepts and adjusting the search method iteratively to synthesize evidence and appraise the scope of an surface area of inquiry.[21] [22] This can mean that the concept search and method (including data extraction, organisation and analysis) are refined throughout the procedure, sometimes requiring deviations from any protocol or original research program.[25] [26] A scoping review may oft exist a preliminary stage before a systematic review, which 'scopes' out an area of research and maps the linguistic communication and central 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 appraise how much data or show is available regarding a certain area of interest.[25] [27] This process is farther complicated if it is mapping concepts across multiple languages or cultures.

Every bit a scoping review should be systematically conducted and reported (with a transparent and repeatable method), some bookish publishers categorize them as a kind of 'systematic review', which may cause confusion. Scoping reviews are helpful when information technology is not possible to deport out a systematic synthesis of research findings, for example, when there are no published clinical trials in the surface area of inquiry. Scoping reviews are helpful when determining if information technology is possible or advisable to acquit out a systematic review, and are a useful method when an area of inquiry is very broad,[28] for example, exploring how the public are involved in all stages systematic reviews.[29]

In that location is still a lack of clarity when defining the verbal method of a scoping review as it is both an iterative procedure and is even so relatively new.[30] At that place have been several attempts to improve the standardisation of the method,[31] [32] [27] [33] for example via a PRISMA guideline extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).[34] PROSPERO (the International Prospective Register 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 primary stages of a review tin can be summarised into five stages:

Defining the inquiry question [edit]

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

Searching for relevant information sources [edit]

Planning how the review volition search for relevant data from research that matches certain criteria is a decisive phase in developing a rigorous systematic review. Relevant criteria tin can include only selecting research that is adept quality and answers the divers question.[36] The search strategy should be designed to retrieve literature that matches the protocol'due south 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 exist checked confronting pre-adamant criteria for eligibility and relevance. Each included study may exist assigned an objective assessment of methodological quality, preferably by using methods befitting to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) argument,[18] or the loftier-quality standards of Cochrane.[38]

Mutual information sources used in searches include scholarly databases of peer-reviewed articles such equally MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed too as sources of unpublished literature such equally clinical trial registries and greyness literature collections. Key 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 chosen 'mitt-searching'),[39] and directly contacting experts in the field.[twoscore]

To exist systematic, searchers must use a combination of search skills and tools such as database subject area headings, keyword searching, Boolean operators, proximity searching, while attempting to balance the sensitivity (systematicity) and precision (accurateness). Inviting and involving an experienced information professional or librarian can notably improve the quality of systematic review search strategies and reporting.[41] [42] [43] [44] [45]

[edit]

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

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

Assess the eligibility of the data [edit]

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

Analyse and combine the data [edit]

Analysing and combining data can provide an overall effect from all the information. Because this combined result uses qualitative or quantitative data from all eligible sources of information, it is considered more reliable as it provides better evidence, as the more information included in reviews, the more confident we tin be of conclusions. When appropriate, some systematic reviews include a meta-analysis, which uses statistical methods to combine information from multiple sources. A review might use quantitative information, or might apply a qualitative meta-synthesis, which synthesises data from qualitative studies. The combination of data from a meta-analysis tin sometimes be visualised. One method uses a forest plot (besides called a blobbogram).[36] In an intervention upshot 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 one of the beginning reviews which showed that corticosteroids given to women who are nearly to requite birth prematurely can save the life of the newborn child.[49]

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

Assessing the quality (or certainty) of bear witness is an important function of some reviews. Class (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) is a transparent framework for developing and presenting summaries of bear witness and is used to grade the quality of evidence.[51] The Class-CERQual (Confidence in the Prove from Reviews of Qualitative research) is used to provide a transparent method for assessing the confidence of bear witness from reviews or qualitative research.[52] Once these stages are complete, the review may be published, disseminated and translated into practice after existence adopted as testify.

Automation of systematic reviews [edit]

Living systematic reviews are a relatively new kind of high quality, semi-automated, upwards-to-date online summaries of inquiry which are updated every bit new research becomes available.[53] The essential difference betwixt a living systematic review and a conventional systematic review is the publication format. Living systematic reviews are 'dynamic, persistent, online-only bear witness summaries, which are updated apace and frequently'.[54]

While living systematic reviews seek to maintain current evidence, the automation or semi-automation of the systematic process itself is increasingly being explored. While piffling evidence exists to demonstrate it is as accurate or involves less transmission effort, efforts that promote training and using bogus intelligence for the procedure are increasing.[55] [56]

Research fields [edit]

Medicine and human wellness [edit]

History of systematic reviews in medicine [edit]

A 1904 British Medical Journal paper by Karl Pearson collated data from several studies in the UK, India and South Africa of typhoid inoculation. He used a meta-analytic approach to aggregate the outcomes of multiple clinical studies.[57] In 1972 Archie Cochrane wrote: 'Information technology is surely a great criticism of our profession that nosotros accept not organised a disquisitional summary, past specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomised controlled trials'.[58] Disquisitional appraisal and synthesis of inquiry findings in a systematic way emerged in 1975 nether the term 'meta analysis'.[59] [60] Early 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 officer in prisoner of war camps, Archie Cochrane worked to amend how the scientific method was used in medical bear witness, writing in 1971: 'the full general scientific trouble with which nosotros are primarily concerned is that of testing a hypothesis that a certain handling alters the natural history of a disease for the better'.[62] His call for the increased utilize of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews led to the cosmos 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]

Electric current use of systematic reviews in medicine [edit]

Many organisations effectually the world employ systematic reviews, with the methodology depending on the guidelines being followed. Organisations which use systematic reviews in medicine and human wellness include the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, UK), the Bureau for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, USA) and the Globe Health Organization. Most notable among 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 besides every bit health systems interventions. When appropriate, they also include the results of other types of research. Cochrane Reviews are published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews section of the Cochrane Library. The 2015 impact cistron for The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was 6.103, and information technology was ranked 12th in the Medicine, Full general & Internal category.[65]

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

  1. Intervention reviews assess the benefits and harms of interventions used in healthcare and health policy.
  2. Diagnostic test accurateness reviews appraise how well a diagnostic exam performs in diagnosing and detecting a particular disease. For conducting diagnostic test accurateness reviews, free software such equally MetaDTA and CAST-HSROC in the graphical user interface is available.[70] [71]
  3. Methodology reviews accost issues relevant to how systematic reviews and clinical trials are conducted and reported.
  4. Qualitative reviews synthesize qualitative evidence to accost questions on aspects other than effectiveness.
  5. Prognosis reviews address the probable course or future outcome(due south) of people with a health problem.
  6. Overviews of Systematic Reviews (OoRs) are a new type of study to compile multiple evidence from systematic reviews into a single document that is accessible and useful to serve equally a friendly forepart end for the Cochrane Collaboration with regard to healthcare decision-making. These are sometimes referred to every bit 'umbrella reviews'.
  7. Living Systematic reviews are continually updated, incorporating relevant new show as it becomes available.[72] They are a relatively new kind of review, with methods still being developed and evaluated. They can be high quality, semi-automated, upward-to-appointment online summaries of research which are updated as new research becomes bachelor.[73] The essential difference between a 'living systematic review' and a conventional systematic review is the publication format. Living systematic reviews are 'dynamic, persistent, online-merely evidence summaries, which are updated rapidly and frequently'.[74]
  8. Rapid reviews are a grade of knowledge synthesis that 'accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting specific methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient style'.[75]
  9. Reviews of circuitous wellness interventions in complex systems review interventions and interventions delivered in complex systems to amend evidence synthesis and guideline development at a global, national or wellness systems level.[76]

The Cochrane Collaboration provides a handbook for systematic reviewers of interventions which 'provides guidance to authors for the preparation of Cochrane Intervention reviews.'[38] The Cochrane Handbook too outlines the key steps for preparing a systematic review[38] and forms the basis of 2 sets of standards for the acquit 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 evidence to inform healthcare conclusion-making. Information technology contains a database of systematic review and meta-analyses which summarize and interpret the results of multi-disciplinary research. The library contains the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), which is a periodical and database for systematic reviews in health care. The Cochrane Library too contains the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Key) 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. It was originally published by Update Software and now published by the share-holder endemic publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. equally function of Wiley Online Library. Royalties from sales of the Cochrane Library are the major source of funds for Cochrane (over £vi million in 2017). There are 3.66 billion people effectually the world who take access to the Library through national licences (national licences cost £1.5 billion[eighty]) or gratuitous provision for populations in low- and middle-income countries eligible under the WHO's HINARI initiative.[lxxx] Authors must pay an boosted fee for their review to be truly open access.[81] Cochrane has an almanac income of $10m USD.[82]

Public involvement and citizen scientific discipline in systematic reviews [edit]

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

  • Joining a collaborative volunteer effort to help categorise and summarise healthcare testify[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 relating to stakeholder interest in systematic reviews and to apply this evidence to draw how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.[84] Thirty pct involved patients and/or carers. The Agile framework provides a fashion to consistently draw how people are involved in systematic review, and may exist used every bit a way to support the decision-making of systematic review authors in planning how to involve people in futurity reviews.[85] Standardised Information on Initiatives (STARDIT) is some other proposed mode of reporting who has been involved in which tasks during research, including systematic reviews.[86]

While there has been some criticism of how Cochrane prioritises systematic reviews,[87] a recent projection involved people in helping identify inquiry priorities to inform futurity 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 as other processes to help ensure that medical information included in Wikipedia is of the highest quality and accurateness.[90]

Learning resources [edit]

Cochrane has produced many learning resources to help people sympathize what systematic reviews are, and how to do them. Most of the learning resources can exist institute at the 'Cochrane Training' webpage,[91] which also includes a link to the book Testing Treatments, which has been translated into many languages.[92] In addition, Cochrane has created a short video What are Systematic Reviews which explains in patently English how they 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 Baronial 2020). In addition, an blithe storyboard version was produced and all the video resources were released in multiple versions under Artistic Eatables for others to employ and adapt.[95] [96] [97] [98] The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) provides free learning resources to support people to appraise research critically, including a checklist which contains 10 questions to 'help y'all 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 commencement gimmicky systematic reviews of literature on anti-social behavior as part of her work, Social Scientific discipline and Social Pathology.[101] [102]

Several organisations employ systematic reviews in social, behavioural, and educational areas of show-based policy, including the National Establish for Health and Intendance Excellence (NICE, Uk), Social Care Plant for Excellence (SCIE, Uk), the Bureau for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, USA), the World Health Organisation, the International Initiative for Bear on Evaluation (3ie), the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Campbell Collaboration. The quasi-standard for systematic review in the social sciences is based on the procedures proposed by the Campbell Collaboration, which is one of several groups promoting testify-based policy in the social sciences. The Campbell Collaboration: 'helps people make well-informed decisions by preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews in education, crime and justice, social welfare and international development.'[103] The Campbell Collaboration is a sibling initiative of Cochrane, and was created in 2000 at the inaugural meeting in Philadelphia, USA, attracting 85 participants from 13 countries.[104]

Business and economics [edit]

Due to the different nature of enquiry fields outside of the natural sciences, the aforementioned methodological steps cannot easily exist practical in all areas of business research. Some attempts to transfer the procedures from medicine to business inquiry take been made,[105] including a step-by-pace approach,[106] and developing a standard process for conducting systematic literature reviews in business and economics. The Campbell & Cochrane Economic science 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 as a component for controlling.[107] Such economical evidence is crucial for health engineering assessment processes.

International development research [edit]

Systematic reviews are increasingly prevalent in other fields, such equally international development research.[108] Subsequently, several donors (including the Britain Department for International Development (DFID) and AusAid) are focusing more 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 Environmental Evidence (CEE) works to achieve a sustainable global environment and the conservation of biodiversity. The CEE has a periodical titled Ecology Testify which publishes systematic reviews, review protocols and systematic maps on impacts of human activity and the effectiveness of management interventions.[109]

Environmental health and toxicology [edit]

Systematic reviews are a relatively recent innovation in the field of environmental health and toxicology. Although mooted in the mid-2000s, the first total frameworks for conduct of systematic reviews of ecology health evidence were only published in 2014 by the US National Toxicology Program'due south Office of Health Assessment and Translation[110] and the Navigation Guide at the Academy of California San Francisco's Program on Reproductive Health and the Surroundings.[111] Uptake has since been rapid, with the estimated number of systematic reviews in the field doubling since 2016 and the starting time consensus recommendations on best practice, every bit a precursor to a more than 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 'critical features' as required to perform a systematic review, including:[113]

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

Limitations [edit]

While systematic reviews involve a highly rigorous approach to synthesizing the bear witness, they still take several limitations.

Out-dated or risk of bias [edit]

While systematic reviews are regarded every bit the strongest grade of evidence, a 2003 review of 300 studies found that not all systematic reviews were equally reliable, and that their reporting tin be improved by a universally agreed upon set of standards and guidelines.[114] A farther study by the aforementioned group found that of 100 systematic reviews monitored, seven% needed updating at the time of publication, another 4% within a year, and some other 11% inside 2 years; this figure was college in speedily changing fields of medicine, especially cardiovascular medicine.[115] A 2003 study suggested that extending searches beyond major databases, perhaps into grey literature, would increment the effectiveness of reviews.[116]

Some authors take 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 being sufficiently critical in the selection of trials and including too many of low quality. They proposed several solutions, including limiting studies in meta-analyses and reviews to registered clinical trials, requiring that original data be fabricated available for statistical checking, paying greater attention to sample size estimates, and eliminating dependence on just published information.

Some of these difficulties were noted equally early as 1994:

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

DG Altman, 1994 [118]

Methodological limitations of meta-assay have too been noted.[119] Another concern is that the methods used to conduct a systematic review are sometimes changed in one case researchers see the available trials they are going to include.[120] Some website have 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 arbitrary (for instance, the date range searched) as this may affect the perceived quality of the review.[124] [125]

Express reporting of clinical trials and information 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 research, including systematic reviews, as information technology is merely possible to synthesize data of published studies. In addition, 'positive' trials were twice every bit likely to exist published every bit those with 'negative' results.[127] At present, information technology is legal for for-profit companies to behave clinical trials and not publish the results.[128] For example, in the by ten years 8.seven million patients accept taken part in trials that have not published results.[128] These factors mean that information technology is likely there is a significant publication bias, with only 'positive' or perceived favourable results beingness published. A recent systematic review of industry sponsorship and inquiry outcomes concluded that 'sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources' and that the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.[129] Systematic reviews of such a bias may amplify the consequence, although it is important to note that the flaw is in the reporting of research generally, 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 issue of poor compliance with guidelines, peculiarly in areas such as declaration of registered study protocols, funding source declaration, risk of bias information, problems resulting from information brainchild, and description of clear study objectives.[130] [131] [132] [133] [134] A host of studies accept identified weaknesses in the rigour and reproducibility of search strategies in systematic reviews.[135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] To remedy this consequence, a new PRISMA guideline extension chosen PRISMA-S is being developed to ameliorate 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 primal challenge for using systematic reviews in clinical practise and healthcare policy is assessing the quality of a given review. Consequently, a range of appraisal tools to evaluate systematic reviews have been designed. The ii near popular measurement instruments and scoring tools for systematic review quality assessment are AMSTAR 2 (a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews)[144] [145] [146] [147] and ROBIS (Chance Of Bias In Systematic reviews); nevertheless, these are non appropriate for all systematic review types.[148]

About this article [edit]

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

Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT) report [edit]

A STARDIT report almost this article tin exist found here:

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

Meet too [edit]

  • Critical appraisement
  • 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". Get-Information technology glossary . Retrieved 18 November 2015.
  2. ^ Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, Waters E (March 2011). "Cochrane Update. 'Scoping the scope' of a cochrane review". Periodical of Public Health. 33 (one): 147–fifty. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdr015. PMID 21345890.
  3. ^ "What is EBM?". Eye for Bear witness Based Medicine. 2009-xi-twenty. Archived from the original on 2011-04-06. Retrieved 2011-06-17 .
  4. ^ Ader HJ, Mellenbergh GJ, Hand DJ (2008). "Methodological quality". Advising on Research Methods: A consultant's companion. Johannes van Kessel Publishing. ISBN978-xc-79418-02-ii.
  5. ^ Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd I (2014). "On the utilise of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies". Environmental Scientific discipline & 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: University of York, Center for Reviews and Dissemination. 2008. ISBN978-1-900640-47-3 . Retrieved 17 June 2011.
  7. ^ Petticrew Yard, Roberts H (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences (PDF). Wiley Blackwell. ISBN978-one-4051-2110-1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-06-16.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h Grant MJ, Berth A (June 2009). "A typology of reviews: an assay of xiv review types and associated methodologies". Health Information & Libraries Periodical. 26 (ii): 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. PMID 19490148.
  9. ^ Bearman Thousand, Dawson P (March 2013). "Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions pedagogy". Medical Education. 47 (iii): 252–60. doi:10.1111/medu.12092. PMID 23398011. S2CID 11042748.
  10. ^ Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston Thousand, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, eds. (2019-09-20). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. preparation.cochrane.org. version six.1. pp. section 4.6. Retrieved 2020-09-14 .
  11. ^ Siemieniuk R, Guyatt G. "What is GRADE?". BMJ Best Practice . Retrieved 2020-08-26 .
  12. ^ Adèr HJ (2008). Advising on Enquiry Methods: A Consultant's Companion. Johannes van Kessel Publishing. ISBN978-90-79418-01-v.
  13. ^ Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, eds. (2013). GRADE Handbook . Retrieved 2020-08-26 .
  14. ^ a b Flemming K, Berth A, Hannes K, Cargo M, Noyes J (May 2018). "Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Grouping guidance series-paper half-dozen: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses" (PDF). Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 97: 79–85. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.022. PMID 29222060.
  15. ^ Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo Thousand, Harris J, Pantoja T, Flemming M, et al. (May 2018). "Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-newspaper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation testify inside intervention effectiveness reviews" (PDF). Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 97: 70–78. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.029. PMID 29242095.
  16. ^ "EPPI-Centre Abode". eppi.ioe.air conditioning.uk . 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 evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. p. 32. OCLC 944453327.
  18. ^ a b "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement". world wide web.equator-network.org . Retrieved 2020-06-29 .
  19. ^ Wong Yard, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R (May 2013). "RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews". Journal of Advanced Nursing. 69 (5): 987–1004. doi:x.1111/jan.12092. PMC3558334. PMID 23356699.
  20. ^ Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp One thousand, Buckingham J, Pawson R (May 2013). "RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses". Journal of Avant-garde Nursing. 69 (five): 1005–22. doi:10.1111/jan.12095. PMC3558331. PMID 23356726.
  21. ^ a b Arksey H, O'Malley 50 (2005). "Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework" (PDF). International Periodical of Social Enquiry Methodology. 8: 19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616. S2CID 12719181.
  22. ^ a b "PRISMA". world wide web.prisma-argument.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 2020-09-16. Retrieved 2020-09-16 .
  24. ^ "Home". 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): 141–6. 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. v (1): 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69. PMC2954944. PMID 20854677.
  27. ^ a b Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK, Straus Due 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–four. doi:x.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013. hdl:1807/73365. PMID 25034198.
  28. ^ Nunn JS, Tiller J, Fransquet P, Lacaze P (2019). "Public Involvement in Global Genomics Research: A Scoping Review". Frontiers in Public Health. 7: 79. doi:10.3389/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. v (1): 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-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 Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare. 13 (three): 141–vi. doi:x.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 Research Methodology. 8 (1): nineteen–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616. S2CID 12719181.
  34. ^ Tricco Air-conditioning, Lillie East, Zarin Due west, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. (October 2018). "PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation" (PDF). Register of Internal Medicine. 169 (7): 467–473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850. PMID 30178033. S2CID 52150954.
  35. ^ "PROSPERO". Centre for Reviews and Broadcasting. Academy of York. Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  36. ^ a b c d eastward f g "Animated 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 S (eds.). "Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011)". The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved ii June 2016.
  39. ^ "5. Handsearching". preparation.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-09-fourteen .
  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 Information & Libraries Periodical. 27 (2): 114–22. doi:ten.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 general internal medicine systematic reviews". Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 68 (6): 617–26. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025. PMID 25766056.
  42. ^ Koffel JB (2015-05-04). "Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors". PLOS ONE. 10 (five): e0125931. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1025931K. doi:x.1371/journal.pone.0125931. PMC4418838. PMID 25938454.
  43. ^ Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J (October 2016). "Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 104 (4): 267–277. doi:x.5195/jmla.2016.139. PMC5079487. PMID 27822147.
  44. ^ Li Fifty, Tian J, Tian H, Moher D, Liang F, Jiang T, et al. (September 2014). "Network meta-analyses could be improved past searching more sources and by involving a librarian". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 67 (9): 1001–7. doi:10.1016/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 manufactures". JAMA. 312 (ten): 999–1000. doi:x.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. (2019-09-20). "Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies". Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. training.cochrane.org. version 6.1. section 4.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 Engineering. EASE '15. Nanjing, China: Association for Computing Machinery: ane–half dozen. doi:10.1145/2745802.2745824. ISBN978-one-4503-3350-4. S2CID 6679820.
  49. ^ "The difference we make". www.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2019-03-08 .
  50. ^ Higgins JP, López-López JA, Becker BJ, Davies SR, Dawson S, Grimshaw JM, et al. (2019-01-01). "Synthesising quantitative bear witness in systematic reviews of complex health interventions". BMJ Global Wellness. iv (Suppl ane): e000858. doi:x.1136/bmjgh-2018-000858. PMC6350707. PMID 30775014.
  51. ^ "GRADE working group". www.gradeworkinggroup.org . Retrieved 2019-03-08 .
  52. ^ "Course CERQual". www.cerqual.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  53. ^ Tsafnat K, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E (July 2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. iii (1): 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 (Feb 2014). "Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap". PLOS Medicine. eleven (2): e1001603. doi:x.1371/journal.pmed.1001603. PMC3928029. PMID 24558353.
  55. ^ Reddy SM, Patel Due south, Weyrich M, Fenton J, Viswanathan One thousand (October 2020). "Comparison of a traditional systematic review arroyo with review-of-reviews and semi-automation as strategies to update the evidence". Systematic Reviews. ix (one): 243. doi:ten.1186/s13643-020-01450-2. PMC7574591. PMID 33076975.
  56. ^ Tsafnat Thousand, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera East (July 2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. 3 (1): 74. doi:ten.1186/2046-4053-3-74. PMC4100748. PMID 25005128.
  57. ^ British Medical Journal Publishing Group (1904-11-05). "Report on Sure Enteric Fever Inoculation Statistics". BMJ. 2 (2288): 1243–1246. doi:10.1136/bmj.ii.2288.1243. ISSN 0007-1447. PMC2355479. PMID 20761760. S2CID 30331745.
  58. ^ a b "1.1.2 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 Evolution, San Francisco, CA) (1978). Meta-Analysis of Research on the Relationship of Form-Size and Accomplishment. The Class Size and Instruction Project. Washington, D.C.]: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.
  60. ^ "History of Systematic Reviews". Evidence for Policy and Do Information and Co-ordinating Center (EPPI-Heart) . 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 Periodical 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. ISBN0-900574-17-8. 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 (iii): 982–8. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b03928. PMC2746659. PMID 19730323.
  64. ^ Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2011). Testing treatments : amend inquiry for ameliorate 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 Manager (RevMan) [Reckoner program]. Version 5.two. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Middle, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
  67. ^ "Principal page". Cochrane Library.
  68. ^ Silva V, Grande AJ, Carvalho AP, Martimbianco AL, Riera R (2015). "Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Role Two". Sao Paulo Medical Journal. 133 (3): 206–17. doi:10.1590/1516-3180.2013.8150015. 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 (half-dozen): 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 web-based tool to conduct and interrogate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: MetaDTA". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 19 (1): 81. doi:ten.1186/s12874-019-0724-ten. PMC6471890. PMID 30999861.
  71. ^ Banno M, Tsujimoto Y, Luo Y, Miyakoshi C, Kataoka Y (2021). "Cast-HSROC: A Web Application for Calculating the Summary Points of Diagnostic Test Accuracy From the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Feature Model". Cureus. thirteen (2): e13257. doi:ten.7759/cureus.13257. PMC7953362. PMID 33717762.
  72. ^ "Living systematic reviews". customs.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  73. ^ Tsafnat Yard, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E (July 2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. 3 (one): 74. doi:ten.1186/2046-4053-3-74. PMC4100748. PMID 25005128.
  74. ^ Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, Thomas J, Higgins JP, Mavergames C, Gruen RL (Feb 2014). "Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the prove-practice gap". PLOS Medicine. 11 (2): e1001603. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603. PMC3928029. PMID 24558353.
  75. ^ "Cochrane's work on Rapid Reviews in response to COVID-19". 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 testify-informed health decisions". BMJ Global Health. 4 (Suppl 1): e000963. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000963. PMC6350736. PMID 30775018.
  77. ^ "Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR)". Cochrane. Retrieved 6 Oct 2014.
  78. ^ "Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL)". Cochrane Library . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  79. ^ "Revisiones Cochrane". Cochrane Library (in Castilian). Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  80. ^ a b "Cochrane'south Future Publishing and Open up Access Arrangements". Cochrane.org. 2019-07-02. Archived from the original on 2019-07-02.
  81. ^ "Open up 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:ten.1136/bmj.k5302. PMID 30606713. S2CID 58623482.
  83. ^ "Cochrane oversupply". crowd.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2019-02-14 .
  84. ^
  85. ^
  86. ^ [Pre-print] Nunn J, Shafee T, Chang S, Stephens R, Elliott J, Oliver S, John D, Smith M, Orr N. "Standardised Data on Initiatives - STARDIT: Blastoff Version". osf.io. doi:10.31219/osf.io/5q47h. S2CID 242815262. Retrieved 2020-08-twenty .
  87. ^ Newman M (2019-01-03). "Has Cochrane lost its manner?". BMJ. 364: k5302. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5302. PMID 30606713. S2CID 58623482.
  88. ^ Synnot AJ, Tong A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan Chiliad, et al. (April 2019). "Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders". Health Research Policy and Systems. 17 (ane): 45. doi:10.1186/s12961-019-0444-z. PMC6489310. PMID 31036016.
  89. ^ Synnot A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan M, Horvat L, et al. (May 2018). "Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders". BMJ Open. 8 (five): 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 gratis online animated learning resource. Abstracts of the 24th Cochrane Colloquium; 23–27 October 2016, Seoul, South korea. Wiley. 2016-ten-23. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD201602.
  95. ^ "Creating a successful online animation resource: 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 i June 2016.
  97. ^ Nunn J, Synnot A, Mcdonald S, Allen K, Hill S (2015). "Building partnerships with the public past learning well-nigh Cochrane evidence". 23rd Cochrane Colloquium 2015. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.2182.1922. Archived from the original on 2015-11-09.
  98. ^ Nunn J, Hill S. "What are systematic reviews?". Retrieved 2020-08-20 .
  99. ^ "CASP Checklists". Critical Appraisal Skills Program . 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 disquisitional woman : Barbara Wootton, social science and public policy in the twentieth century. London: Bloomsbury Bookish. ISBN9781849664707.
  103. ^ "About The states". The Campbell Collaboration. Archived from the original on February 3, 2014. Retrieved March 26, 2014.
  104. ^ "History of the Campbell Collaboration". Campbell Collaboration . Retrieved 2021-04-15 . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  105. ^ Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003). "Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed direction cognition by ways of systematic review". British Journal of Management. 14 (3): 207–222. CiteSeerX10.1.1.622.895. 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. ^ "Well-nigh usa". methods.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  108. ^ a b Hagen-Zanker J, Duvendack M, Mallett R, Slater R, Carpenter S, Tromme Thousand (Jan 2012). "Making systematic reviews piece of work for international development research". Overseas Development Institute.
  109. ^ "Environmental Testify: Reliable bear witness, informed decisions, better 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 Evidence Integration for Literature-Based Environmental Wellness Science Assessments". Ecology Health Perspectives. 122 (7): 711–718. doi:x.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 Health Science into Better Health Outcomes". Environmental Health Perspectives. 122 (10): 1007–1014. doi:10.1289/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; Hunt, 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 carry of systematic reviews in toxicology and environmental health enquiry (COSTER)". Surroundings 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 research". Altex. 36 (3): 508–517. doi:10.14573/altex.1902131. PMID 31113000.
  114. ^ Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco Air-conditioning, Sampson M, Altman DG (March 2007). "Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews". PLOS Medicine. four (iii): e78. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. PMC1831728. PMID 17388659.
  115. ^ Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette Due south, Moher D (August 2007). "How speedily do systematic reviews become out of date? A survival analysis". Register of Internal Medicine. 147 (four): 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). "Across Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search". International Journal of Technology Cess in Health Care. 19 (ane): 168–78. doi:10.1017/S0266462303000163. PMID 12701949. S2CID 42494895.
  117. ^ Roberts I, Ker M, Edwards P, Beecher D, Manno D, Sydenham E (June 2015). "The cognition system underpinning healthcare is non fit for purpose and must change" (PDF). BMJ. 350: h2463. doi:10.1136/bmj.h2463. PMID 26041754. S2CID 33523612.
  118. ^ Altman DG (January 1994). "The scandal of poor medical research". BMJ. 308 (6924): 283–4. doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283. PMC2539276. PMID 8124111.
  119. ^ Shapiro S (November 1994). "Meta-analysis/Shmeta-analysis". American Journal of Epidemiology. 140 (9): 771–8. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117324. PMID 7977286.
  120. ^ Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, Light-green S, 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 Watch . Retrieved 29 June 2015.
  123. ^ Ferguson C (2015-03-26). "BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer review". Retraction Sentinel.
  124. ^ Flinders Academy Library. "Search Smart: Systematic Reviews: Methodology overview". flinders.libguides.com . Retrieved 2020-09-16 .
  125. ^ Pursell E, McCrae N (2020). How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review: a guide for healthcare researchers, practitioners and students. Springer Nature. ISBN978-3-030-49672-2. OCLC 1182880684.
  126. ^ "One-half of all clinical trials take never reported results". AllTrials. 2015-08-20. Retrieved 2019-03-08 .
  127. ^ Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. (February 2010). "Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases". Health Technology Cess. 14 (eight): 3, ix–xi, i–193. doi:10.3310/hta14080. PMID 20181324.
  128. ^ a b Iacobucci G (November 2016). "Nearly half of all trials run past major sponsors in past decade are unpublished". BMJ. 355: i5955. doi:ten.1136/bmj.i5955. PMID 27815253. S2CID 43604202.
  129. ^ Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L, et al. (Cochrane Methodology Review Group) (Feb 2017). "Industry sponsorship and enquiry outcome". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017 (2): MR000033. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3. PMC8132492. PMID 28207928.
  130. ^ Pidgeon TE, Wellstead G, Sagoo H, Jafree DJ, Fowler AJ, Agha RA (October 2016). "An assessment of the compliance of systematic review articles published in craniofacial surgery with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review". Journal 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 Grand, Wellstead G, Fowler AJ, Agha RA, Orgill D (2016-03-01). "Compliance of Systematic Reviews in Plastic Surgery With the PRISMA Statement". JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery. eighteen (ii): 101–5. doi:10.1001/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:10.1016/j.jocn.2017.02.016. PMID 28246008. S2CID 27738264.
  133. ^ Lee SY, Sagoo H, Farwana R, Whitehurst Grand, Fowler A, Agha R (Dec 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement". BMC Medical Enquiry Methodology. 17 (1): 178. doi:ten.1186/s12874-017-0450-1. PMC5745614. PMID 29281981.
  134. ^ Eastward JY, Saldanha IJ, Canner J, Schmid CH, Le JT, Li T (May 2020). "Adjudication rather than experience of information abstraction matters more than in reducing errors in abstracting data in systematic reviews". Research Synthesis Methods. eleven (iii): 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 Loftier-Touch on Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Report". PLOS ONE. 11 (nine): e0163309. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1163309K. doi:10.1371/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 (i): 21–ix. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.004. PMC2605027. PMID 19158999.
  137. ^ Toews LC (July 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines". Periodical of the Medical Library Association. 105 (3): 233–239. doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.246. PMC5490700. PMID 28670210.
  138. ^ Mullins MM, DeLuca JB, Crepaz Due north, Lyles CM (June 2014). "Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible?". Research Synthesis Methods. five (2): 116–30. doi:x.1002/jrsm.1098. PMC5861495. PMID 26052651.
  139. ^ Briscoe South (March 2018). "A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews". Inquiry Synthesis Methods. 9 (i): 89–99. doi:x.1002/jrsm.1275. PMID 29065246.
  140. ^ Golder S, Loke Y, McIntosh HM (May 2008). "Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of agin effects". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61 (v): 440–8. doi:ten.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005. PMID 18394536.
  141. ^ Rethlefsen M, Ayala AP, Kirtley S, Koffel J, Waffenschmidt Southward (2019-03-04). "PRISMA-Southward PRISMA Search Reporting Extension". doi:ten.17605/OSF.IO/YGN9W.
  142. ^ [Pre-print] Rethlefsen Yard, Kirtley Due south, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel J. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis Search Extension (PRISMA-S) 2019: Caption and Elaboration". osf.io. doi:10.31219/osf.io/sfc38. S2CID 243613770. Retrieved 2019-03-20 .
  143. ^ McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster Five, Lefebvre C (July 2016). "Press Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 75: twoscore–6. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021. PMID 27005575.
  144. ^ Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells Grand, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. (September 2017). "AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-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 Research Methodology. vii (1): 10. doi:ten.1186/1471-2288-7-ten. PMC1810543. PMID 17302989.
  146. ^ Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, 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): 1013–20. doi:x.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009. PMID 19230606.
  147. ^ Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. (September 2017). "AMSTAR ii: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both". BMJ. 358: j4008. doi:x.1136/bmj.j4008. PMC5833365. PMID 28935701.
  148. ^ Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al. (January 2016). "ROBIS: A new tool to assess hazard of bias in systematic reviews was adult". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 69: 225–34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005. PMC4687950. PMID 26092286.
  • This commodity was submitted to WikiJournal of Medicine for external academic peer review in 2019 (reviewer reports). The updated content was reintegrated into the Wikipedia page under a CC-By-SA-3.0 license (2020). The version of record as reviewed is:

Jack Nunn; et al. (9 Nov 2020). "What are Systematic Reviews?" (PDF). WikiJournal of Medicine. 7 (1): 5. 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 nigh the review process
  • MeSH: Review [Publication Blazon] - limit search results to reviews
  • Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, "an evidence-based minimum fix 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 gratuitous platform with open access systematic reviews.

jenksereepliefor.blogspot.com

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

0 Response to "What Type of Research Design Is a Systematic Review"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel