Home  ›  Cj 300 7-1 Final Project Submission Literature Review

Cj 300 7-1 Final Project Submission Literature Review

Written By Sunday, April 17, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Comprehensive review of enquiry literature using systematic methods

Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable analytical methods to collect secondary information and analyse it. Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis which formulate research questions that are broad or narrow in scope, and identify and synthesize data that directly relate to the systematic review question.[1] While some people might acquaintance 'systematic review' with 'meta-assay', there are multiple kinds of review which can be defined as 'systematic' which do not involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically appraise inquiry studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively.[2] Systematic reviews are ofttimes designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current show relevant to a research question. For example, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing evidence-based medicine,[3] and a review of existing studies is often 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 assessment of a precisely defined subject would be helpful.[4] Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public wellness interventions, ecology interventions,[v] social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations.[6] [7]

An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in exercise 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 determination making in many different disciplines, such equally evidence-based healthcare and evidence-based policy and do.[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-assay of available data, there are also qualitative reviews and other types of mixed-methods reviews which adhere to standards for gathering, analyzing and reporting evidence.[9]

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

The EPPI-Middle, 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 about 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) statement[17] suggests a standardized mode to ensure a transparent and consummate reporting of systematic reviews, and is now required for this kind of research by more than 170 medical journals worldwide.[viii] Several specialized PRISMA guideline extensions have been developed to support particular types of studies or aspects of the review process, 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 health Inquiry) 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;[nineteen] [20] 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 arroyo, both of which addressed bug of variation in methods and heterogeneity existing on some subjects.[21] [22]

Types [edit]

There are over 30 types of systematic review and the Table 1 beneath summarises some of these, just it is not exhaustive.[8] [17] It is important to notation that at that place is not always consensus on the boundaries and distinctions between the approaches described beneath.

Table i: 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 study design and other features. Mapping reviews can be used to identify the need for principal or secondary research.[8]
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 testify from multiple studies. The 2 types of data by and large used for meta-assay in health enquiry are individual participant data and aggregate data (such as odds ratios or relative risks).
Mixed studies review/mixed methods review Refers to any combination of methods where one pregnant stage is a literature review (often systematic). It can also refer to a combination of review approaches such as combining quantitative with qualitative inquiry.[8]
Qualitative systematic review/qualitative show synthesis This method for integrates or compares findings from qualitative studies. The method 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.[viii]
Rapid review An cess of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, which uses systematic review methods to search for and critically assess existing enquiry. Rapid reviews are still a systematic review, nonetheless parts of the procedure may exist simplified or omitted in order to increase 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 information (for example the quality of the data) 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 accost broad 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, only searching is often not as comprehensive equally a systematic review and may not include quality assessments of data sources.

Scoping reviews [edit]

Scoping reviews are distinct from systematic reviews in several important ways. A scoping review is an endeavour to search for concepts by mapping the language and data which surrounds those concepts and adjusting the search method iteratively to synthesize evidence and assess the scope of an area of inquiry.[21] [22] This tin can mean that the concept search and method (including data extraction, organisation and assay) are refined throughout the process, sometimes requiring deviations from whatsoever protocol or original enquiry plan.[25] [26] A scoping review may often be a preliminary phase before a systematic review, which 'scopes' out an expanse of inquiry and maps the language and key concepts to make up one's mind if a systematic review is possible or advisable, or to lay the background for a full systematic review. The goal can be to assess how much data or prove is available regarding a certain surface 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 academic publishers categorize them equally a kind of 'systematic review', which may cause confusion. Scoping reviews are helpful when it is not possible to conduct out a systematic synthesis of research findings, for example, when there are no published clinical trials in the area of inquiry. Scoping reviews are helpful when determining if it 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 withal a lack of clarity when defining the exact method of a scoping review as it is both an iterative process and is still relatively new.[xxx] There take been several attempts to improve the standardisation of the method,[31] [32] [27] [33] for instance via a PRISMA guideline extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).[34] PROSPERO (the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) does not permit the submission of protocols of scoping reviews,[35] although some journals will publish protocols for scoping reviews.[29]

Stages [edit]

While at that place are multiple kinds of systematic review methods, the principal stages of a review can be summarised into five stages:

Defining the research question [edit]

Defining an answerable question and agreeing an objective method is required to blueprint a useful systematic review.[36] Best do recommends publishing the protocol of the review before initiating it to reduce the run a risk of unplanned inquiry 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 Trouble', 'Intervention or Exposure', 'Comparing' and 'Upshot', with other variations existing for other kinds of research. For qualitative reviews PICo is 'Population or Problem', 'Interest' and 'Context'.

Searching for relevant data sources [edit]

Planning how the review will search for relevant data from research that matches sure criteria is a decisive stage in developing a rigorous systematic review. Relevant criteria can include just selecting enquiry that is skilful quality and answers the defined question.[36] The search strategy should exist designed to retrieve 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 manufactures tin be checked confronting pre-adamant 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,[18] or the loftier-quality standards of Cochrane.[38]

Common information sources used in searches include scholarly databases of peer-reviewed articles such as MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed likewise every bit sources of unpublished literature such as clinical trial registries and grey literature collections. Cardinal references can also be yielded through additional methods such equally commendation 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 straight contacting experts in the field.[40]

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

[edit]

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

Relevant information are 'extracted' from the data sources co-ordinate to the review method. Information technology is of import to note that the data extraction method is specific to the kind of data, and data extracted on 'outcomes' is only relevant to certain types of reviews. For instance, a systematic review of clinical trials might extract information nigh how the research was washed (often called the method or 'intervention'), who participated in the inquiry (including how many people), how information technology was paid for (for example funding sources) and what happened (the outcomes).[36] Finer, relevant data being extracted and 'combined' in a Cochrane intervention effect review, where a meta-analysis is possible.[46]

Assess the eligibility of the information [edit]

This stage involves assessing the eligibility of information for inclusion in the review, by judging it against criteria identified at the outset phase.[36] This can include assessing if a information source meets the eligibility criteria, and recording why decisions about inclusion or exclusion in the review were made. Software can be used to back up the pick process including text mining tools and machine learning, which can automate aspects of the procedure.[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 data tin provide an overall effect from all the data. Because this combined outcome uses qualitative or quantitative data from all eligible sources of data, it is considered more reliable as information technology provides better evidence, as the more information included in reviews, the more than confident we can 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 data, or might employ a qualitative meta-synthesis, which synthesises data from qualitative studies. The combination of data from a meta-analysis can sometimes be visualised. One method uses a forest plot (as well chosen 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 example of a 'forest plot' is the Cochrane Collaboration logo.[36] The logo is a forest plot of 1 of the outset reviews which showed that corticosteroids given to women who are about to give nascence prematurely can salve the life of the newborn child.[49]

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

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

Automation of systematic reviews [edit]

Living systematic reviews are a relatively new kind of high quality, semi-automated, up-to-date online summaries of research which are updated as new enquiry becomes available.[53] The essential difference between a living systematic review and a conventional systematic review is the publication format. Living systematic reviews are 'dynamic, persistent, online-just bear witness summaries, which are updated rapidly and oftentimes'.[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 little evidence exists to demonstrate it is every bit authentic or involves less manual effort, efforts that promote training and using artificial 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 Periodical paper by Karl Pearson collated data from several studies in the United kingdom, India and Due 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: 'Information technology is surely a nifty criticism of our profession that we have not organised a critical summary, past specialty or subspecialty, adjusted periodically, of all relevant randomised controlled trials'.[58] Critical appraisal and synthesis of inquiry findings in a systematic way emerged in 1975 under the term 'meta assay'.[59] [60] Early on syntheses were conducted in wide areas of public policy and social interventions, with systematic research synthesis applied to medicine and health.[61] Inspired by his own personal experiences every bit a senior medical officer in pow camps, Archie Cochrane worked to improve how the scientific method was used in medical testify, writing in 1971: 'the general scientific problem with which we 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 employ 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 Institute for Health and Intendance Excellence (Nice, UK), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, United states) and the Earth Health Organisation. Most notable amongst international organisations is Cochrane, a group of over 37,000 specialists in healthcare who systematically review randomised trials of the furnishings of prevention, treatments and rehabilitation also as wellness 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 factor for The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was 6.103, and it was ranked 12th in the Medicine, 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 examination accuracy reviews appraise how well a diagnostic test performs in diagnosing and detecting a particular disease. For conducting diagnostic exam accurateness reviews, free software such as 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 address questions on aspects other than effectiveness.
  5. Prognosis reviews address the probable class or future issue(s) of people with a health trouble.
  6. Overviews of Systematic Reviews (OoRs) are a new type of study to compile multiple evidence from systematic reviews into a unmarried document that is attainable and useful to serve as a friendly front end end for the Cochrane Collaboration with regard to healthcare determination-making. These are sometimes referred to every bit 'umbrella reviews'.
  7. Living Systematic reviews are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available.[72] They are a relatively new kind of review, with methods still existence developed and evaluated. They tin be high quality, semi-automated, up-to-engagement online summaries of inquiry which are updated as new enquiry becomes available.[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-only testify summaries, which are updated rapidly and frequently'.[74]
  8. Rapid reviews are a course 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 resources-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 training of Cochrane Intervention reviews.'[38] The Cochrane Handbook also outlines the key steps for preparing a systematic review[38] and forms the basis of ii sets of standards for the behave and reporting of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR - Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews).[77] It also contains guidance on how to undertake qualitative bear witness synthesis, economical reviews and integrating patient-reported outcomes into reviews.

The Cochrane Library is a drove of databases that contains different types of contained show to inform healthcare decision-making. 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 as well available in Spanish.[79]

The Cochrane Library is owned by Cochrane. It was originally published by Update Software and now published by the share-holder owned publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. as function of Wiley Online Library. Royalties from sales of the Cochrane Library are the major source of funds for Cochrane (over £6 meg in 2017). There are 3.66 billion people around the world who have admission to the Library through national licences (national licences cost £ane.5 billion[80]) or free provision for populations in depression- and centre-income countries eligible nether the WHO'south HINARI initiative.[80] Authors must pay an additional fee for their review to exist truly open access.[81] Cochrane has an annual income of $10m USD.[82]

Public interest and denizen 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 higher. Tasks include:

  • Joining a collaborative volunteer endeavour to help categorise and summarise healthcare evidence[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 show-base relating to stakeholder interest in systematic reviews and to utilize this evidence to depict how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.[84] Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. The ACTIVE framework provides a style to consistently depict how people are involved in systematic review, and may be used equally a way to back up the decision-making of systematic review authors in planning how to involve people in time to come reviews.[85] Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT) is another proposed way 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 project involved people in helping identify research priorities to inform future Cochrane Reviews.[88] [89] In 2014, the Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership was formalised. This supports the inclusion of relevant evidence inside all Wikipedia medical manufactures, equally well as other processes to help ensure that medical information included in Wikipedia is of the highest quality and accuracy.[90]

Learning resource [edit]

Cochrane has produced many learning resource to help people sympathise what systematic reviews are, and how to exercise them. Virtually of the learning resources can be constitute at the 'Cochrane Preparation' webpage,[91] which also includes a link to the book Testing Treatments, which has been translated into many languages.[92] In add-on, Cochrane has created a brusque video What are Systematic Reviews which explains in apparently 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 August 2020). In addition, an animated storyboard version was produced and all the video resources were released in multiple versions under Creative Commons for others to apply and arrange.[95] [96] [97] [98] The Disquisitional Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) provides free learning resources to support people to appraise inquiry 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 1 of the first gimmicky 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 testify-based policy, including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, UK), Social Care Found for Excellence (SCIE, U.k.), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, U.s.a.), the Globe Health Organization, the International Initiative for Impact 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 evidence-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, U.s., attracting 85 participants from 13 countries.[104]

Business organization and economic science [edit]

Due to the unlike nature of research fields outside of the natural sciences, the same methodological steps cannot easily be practical in all areas of business research. Some attempts to transfer the procedures from medicine to business research have been fabricated,[105] including a stride-by-footstep approach,[106] and developing a standard process for conducting systematic literature reviews in business and economics. The Campbell & Cochrane Economic science Methods Grouping (C-CEMG) works to improve the inclusion of economic evidence into Cochrane and Campbell systematic reviews of interventions, to enhance the usefulness of review findings as a component for decision-making.[107] Such economic evidence is crucial for health technology cess processes.

International development research [edit]

Systematic reviews are increasingly prevalent in other fields, such as international development enquiry.[108] Subsequently, several donors (including the UK 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]

Environment [edit]

The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) works to achieve a sustainable global environment and the conservation of biodiversity. The CEE has a journal titled Environmental Evidence 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 full frameworks for conduct of systematic reviews of environmental health evidence were simply published in 2014 past the U.s.a. National Toxicology Program's Part of Wellness Cess and Translation[110] and the Navigation Guide at the Academy of California San Francisco's Plan on Reproductive Wellness and the Environment.[111] Uptake has since been rapid, with the estimated number of systematic reviews in the field doubling since 2016 and the beginning consensus recommendations on best practice, every bit a precursor to a more general standard, beingness 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 web application
  • Covidence: a proprietary, paid web application and Cochrane applied science platform.
  • Rayyan: a proprietary, free of charge web application
  • Sysrev: a proprietary, freemium web awarding

Limitations [edit]

While systematic reviews involve a highly rigorous approach to synthesizing the evidence, they still have several limitations.

Out-dated or take a chance of bias [edit]

While systematic reviews are regarded as the strongest form of evidence, a 2003 review of 300 studies institute that non all systematic reviews were equally reliable, and that their reporting tin exist improved by a universally agreed upon gear up of standards and guidelines.[114] A farther study by the same grouping plant that of 100 systematic reviews monitored, 7% needed updating at the time of publication, another 4% within a year, and some other xi% within 2 years; this effigy was higher in rapidly changing fields of medicine, especially cardiovascular medicine.[115] A 2003 study suggested that extending searches beyond major databases, maybe 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 have been criticized as non being sufficiently disquisitional in the choice 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 data be fabricated bachelor for statistical checking, paying greater attending to sample size estimates, and eliminating dependence on only published data.

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

much poor research 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-analysis have also been noted.[119] Another concern is that the methods used to conduct a systematic review are sometimes changed one time 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 be justifiable and not arbitrary (for example, the engagement range searched) equally this may affect the perceived quality of the review.[124] [125]

Limited reporting of clinical trials and information from human being studies [edit]

The 'AllTrials' campaign highlights that around one-half of clinical trials accept never reported results and works to better reporting.[126] This lack of reporting has extremely serious implications for research, including systematic reviews, every bit information technology is only possible to synthesize data of published studies. In addition, 'positive' trials were twice every bit likely to be published equally those with 'negative' results.[127] At present, it is legal for for-profit companies to conduct clinical trials and non publish the results.[128] For instance, in the past x years 8.7 1000000 patients have taken part in trials that take not published results.[128] These factors mean that it is likely there is a significant publication bias, with merely 'positive' or perceived favourable results being published. A recent systematic review of industry sponsorship and research outcomes concluded that 'sponsorship of drug and device studies past 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 exist explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.[129] Systematic reviews of such a bias may amplify the outcome, although it is of import to note that the flaw is in the reporting of enquiry 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 attendant issue of poor compliance with guidelines, especially in areas such every bit declaration of registered report protocols, funding source declaration, risk of bias data, issues resulting from data abstraction, 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 issue, a new PRISMA guideline extension chosen PRISMA-S 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 primal 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 have been designed. The 2 most popular measurement instruments and scoring tools for systematic review quality assessment are AMSTAR 2 (a measurement tool to appraise the methodological quality of systematic reviews)[144] [145] [146] [147] and ROBIS (Hazard Of Bias In Systematic reviews); however, these are non advisable for all systematic review types.[148]

About 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 study about this article can 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]

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

References [edit]

  1. ^ "systematic review". GET-IT glossary . Retrieved xviii November 2015.
  2. ^ Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, Waters Eastward (March 2011). "Cochrane Update. 'Scoping the scope' of a cochrane review". Journal of Public Health. 33 (i): 147–50. doi:x.1093/pubmed/fdr015. PMID 21345890.
  3. ^ "What is EBM?". Centre for Testify Based Medicine. 2009-xi-20. Archived from the original on 2011-04-06. Retrieved 2011-06-17 .
  4. ^ Ader HJ, Mellenbergh GJ, Manus DJ (2008). "Methodological quality". Advising on Research Methods: A consultant'due south companion. Johannes van Kessel Publishing. ISBN978-ninety-79418-02-2.
  5. ^ Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd I (2014). "On the employ of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies". Ecology Science & Policy. 42: 67–77. doi:x.1016/j.envsci.2014.05.010.
  6. ^ Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (PDF). York: University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2008. ISBN978-ane-900640-47-3 . Retrieved 17 June 2011.
  7. ^ Petticrew M, Roberts H (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences (PDF). Wiley Blackwell. ISBN978-i-4051-2110-one. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-06-sixteen.
  8. ^ a b c d e 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:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. PMID 19490148.
  9. ^ Bearman Thou, Dawson P (March 2013). "Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions didactics". Medical Educational activity. 47 (3): 252–60. 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. (2019-09-20). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. training.cochrane.org. version six.1. pp. department 4.6. Retrieved 2020-09-14 .
  11. ^ Siemieniuk R, Guyatt Thousand. "What is Course?". BMJ Best Practice . Retrieved 2020-08-26 .
  12. ^ Adèr HJ (2008). Advising on Research Methods: A Consultant's Companion. Johannes van Kessel Publishing. ISBN978-ninety-79418-01-5.
  13. ^ Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, eds. (2013). GRADE Handbook . Retrieved 2020-08-26 .
  14. ^ a b Flemming Chiliad, Booth A, Hannes K, Cargo Thou, Noyes J (May 2018). "Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-newspaper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and procedure evaluation prove syntheses" (PDF). Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 97: 79–85. doi:x.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.ten.022. PMID 29222060.
  15. ^ Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo One thousand, Harris J, Pantoja T, Flemming One thousand, et al. (May 2018). "Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance serial-paper five: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation prove within intervention effectiveness reviews" (PDF). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 97: 70–78. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.xi.029. PMID 29242095.
  16. ^ "EPPI-Centre Home". eppi.ioe.ac.britain . Retrieved 2020-06-29 .
  17. ^ a b Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming Grand, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P, Van Der Wilt GJ, et al. (2016). Guidance on choosing qualitative bear witness synthesis methods for use in health applied science assessments of complex 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 G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp Grand, Buckingham J, Pawson R (May 2013). "RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews". Periodical of Advanced Nursing. 69 (5): 987–1004. doi:ten.1111/jan.12092. PMC3558334. PMID 23356699.
  20. ^ Wong Yard, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp 1000, Buckingham J, Pawson R (May 2013). "RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses". Journal of Advanced Nursing. 69 (5): 1005–22. doi:x.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:10.1080/1364557032000119616. S2CID 12719181.
  22. ^ a b "PRISMA". world wide web.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 2020-09-16. Retrieved 2020-09-sixteen .
  24. ^ "Domicile". 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 Journal of Bear witness-Based Healthcare. 13 (three): 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 Scientific discipline. 5 (ane): 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69. PMC2954944. PMID 20854677.
  27. ^ a b Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco Air-conditioning, Perrier 50, 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 Involvement in Global Genomics Inquiry: A Scoping Review". Frontiers in Public Health. seven: 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 Science. 5 (ane): 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69. 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. xiii (three): 141–6. doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050. PMID 26134548. S2CID 8860037.
  33. ^ Arksey H, O'Malley L (2005-02-01). "Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework" (PDF). International Periodical of Social Research Methodology. 8 (ane): xix–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616. S2CID 12719181.
  34. ^ Tricco AC, Lillie Eastward, Zarin Due west, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. (Oct 2018). "PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation" (PDF). Annals of Internal Medicine. 169 (7): 467–473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850. PMID 30178033. S2CID 52150954.
  35. ^ "PROSPERO". Heart for Reviews and Dissemination. University of York. Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  36. ^ a b c d east f g "Blithe Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews?". cccrg.cochrane.org. Cochrane Consumers and Communication. 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 v.1.0 (updated March 2011)". The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  39. ^ "five. Handsearching". training.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-09-14 .
  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:x.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:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.eleven.025. PMID 25766056.
  42. ^ Koffel JB (2015-05-04). "Employ of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the bear upon of librarian involvement: a cross-exclusive survey of recent authors". PLOS Ane. x (five): e0125931. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1025931K. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125931. PMC4418838. PMID 25938454.
  43. ^ Meert D, Torabi North, Costella J (October 2016). "Affect of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews". Journal of the Medical Library Clan. 104 (4): 267–277. doi:10.5195/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 articles". JAMA. 312 (10): 999–yard. 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 M, 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 half dozen.ane. department 4.vi. Retrieved 2020-09-14 .
  48. ^ Marshall C, Brereton P (2015-04-27). "Systematic review toolbox: a catalogue of tools to back up systematic reviews". Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Applied science. EASE 'xv. Nanjing, Mainland china: Clan for Computing Machinery: 1–6. doi:10.1145/2745802.2745824. ISBN978-ane-4503-3350-four. 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 S, Grimshaw JM, et al. (2019-01-01). "Synthesising quantitative evidence in systematic reviews of circuitous health interventions". BMJ Global Wellness. 4 (Suppl i): e000858. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000858. PMC6350707. PMID 30775014.
  51. ^ "Course working grouping". www.gradeworkinggroup.org . Retrieved 2019-03-08 .
  52. ^ "Course 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. three (one): 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. eleven (2): e1001603. doi:ten.1371/journal.pmed.1001603. PMC3928029. PMID 24558353.
  55. ^ Reddy SM, Patel Southward, Weyrich Thousand, Fenton J, Viswanathan K (October 2020). "Comparison of a traditional systematic review approach with review-of-reviews and semi-automation as strategies to update the prove". Systematic Reviews. 9 (1): 243. doi:x.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. iii (1): 74. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-74. PMC4100748. PMID 25005128.
  57. ^ British Medical Journal Publishing Group (1904-11-05). "Study on Certain Enteric Fever Inoculation Statistics". BMJ. 2 (2288): 1243–1246. doi:x.1136/bmj.2.2288.1243. ISSN 0007-1447. PMC2355479. PMID 20761760. S2CID 30331745.
  58. ^ a b "1.1.2 A brief history of Cochrane". customs.cochrane.org. Archived from the original on 2019-01-17. Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  59. ^ Glass GV, Smith ML, et al. (Far Westward Lab. for Educational Research and Evolution, San Francisco, CA) (1978). Meta-Analysis of Research on the Relationship of Class-Size and Accomplishment. The Form Size and Teaching Project. Washington, D.C.]: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.
  60. ^ "History of Systematic Reviews". Show for Policy and Practice Data and Co-ordinating Middle (EPPI-Centre) . 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 (four): 248–54. doi:10.1056/NEJM199207233270406. PMID 1614465.
  62. ^ Cochrane AL (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health 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 evidence-based medicine". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 124 (3): 982–8. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b03928. PMC2746659. PMID 19730323.
  64. ^ Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2011). Testing treatments : improve research for better healthcare (Second ed.). London: Pinter & Martin. ISBN978-ane-905177-48-vi. OCLC 778837501.
  65. ^ The Cochrane Library. 2015 bear upon cistron. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Retrieved 2016-07-20.
  66. ^ Review Managing director (RevMan) [Computer plan]. Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Middle, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
  67. ^ "Main folio". Cochrane Library.
  68. ^ Silva V, Grande AJ, Carvalho AP, Martimbianco AL, Riera R (2015). "Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of written report. Office Ii". Sao Paulo Medical Periodical. 133 (3): 206–17. doi:10.1590/1516-3180.2013.8150015. PMID 25388685.
  69. ^ Silva Five, Grande AJ, Martimbianco AL, Riera R, Carvalho AP (2012). "Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of report: 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 (i): 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 Test Accuracy From the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic Model". Cureus. 13 (2): e13257. doi:x.7759/cureus.13257. PMC7953362. PMID 33717762.
  72. ^ "Living systematic reviews". community.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  73. ^ Tsafnat 1000, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera East (July 2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. iii (1): 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-do gap". PLOS Medicine. eleven (2): e1001603. doi:10.1371/periodical.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 wellness interventions in complex systems: improving the process and methods for show-informed wellness decisions". BMJ Global Health. four (Suppl 1): e000963. doi:x.1136/bmjgh-2018-000963. PMC6350736. PMID 30775018.
  77. ^ "Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR)". Cochrane. Retrieved half-dozen October 2014.
  78. ^ "Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (Cardinal)". Cochrane Library . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  79. ^ "Revisiones Cochrane". Cochrane Library (in Spanish). Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  80. ^ a b "Cochrane'southward Future 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". crowd.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2019-02-fourteen .
  84. ^
  85. ^
  86. ^ [Pre-print] Nunn J, Shafee T, Chang Due south, Stephens R, Elliott J, Oliver South, John D, Smith M, Orr N. "Standardised Information on Initiatives - STARDIT: Alpha Version". osf.io. doi:10.31219/osf.io/5q47h. S2CID 242815262. Retrieved 2020-08-xx .
  87. ^ Newman One thousand (2019-01-03). "Has Cochrane lost its fashion?". 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 M, et al. (April 2019). "Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in wellness advice and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders". Health Enquiry Policy and Systems. 17 (1): 45. doi:ten.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 wellness advice and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders". BMJ Open. 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 free online animated learning resource. Abstracts of the 24th Cochrane Colloquium; 23–27 Oct 2016, Seoul, South Korea. Wiley. 2016-10-23. 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 one June 2016.
  97. ^ Nunn J, Synnot A, Mcdonald S, Allen Thou, Loma Southward (2015). "Building partnerships with the public by learning about 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 Due south. "What are systematic reviews?". Retrieved 2020-08-xx .
  99. ^ "CASP Checklists". Critical Appraisal Skills Programme . Retrieved 2020-08-21 .
  100. ^ "CASP Systematic Review Checklist" (PDF). casp-britain.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 Bookish. ISBN9781849664707.
  103. ^ "Nearly Usa". The Campbell Collaboration. Archived from the original on February three, 2014. Retrieved March 26, 2014.
  104. ^ "History of the Campbell Collaboration". Campbell Collaboration . Retrieved 2021-04-fifteen . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  105. ^ Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003). "Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge past ways of systematic review". British Periodical of Direction. xiv (3): 207–222. CiteSeerX10.1.1.622.895. doi:x.1111/1467-8551.00375.
  106. ^ Durach CF, Kembro J, Wieland A (2017). "A New Paradigm for Systematic Literature Reviews in Supply Concatenation Management". Journal of Supply Chain Management. 53 (four): 67–85. doi:10.1111/jscm.12145.
  107. ^ "Virtually us". methods.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  108. ^ a b Hagen-Zanker J, Duvendack Grand, Mallett R, Slater R, Carpenter S, Tromme M (January 2012). "Making systematic reviews work for international development research". Overseas Development Institute.
  109. ^ "Environmental Evidence: Reliable evidence, informed decisions, better environment". world wide web.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 Health Science Assessments". Environmental Wellness Perspectives. 122 (7): 711–718. doi:ten.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 Ecology 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; 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 conduct of systematic reviews in toxicology and environmental health research (COSTER)". Environs International. 143: 105926. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105926. PMID 32653802. S2CID 220502683.
  113. ^ Van der Mierden S, Tsaioun Chiliad, Bleich A, Leenaars CH (2019). "Software tools for literature screening in systematic reviews in biomedical enquiry". Altex. 36 (3): 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. 4 (3): e78. doi:10.1371/periodical.pmed.0040078. PMC1831728. PMID 17388659.
  115. ^ Shojania KG, Sampson One thousand, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette South, Moher D (Baronial 2007). "How chop-chop do systematic reviews get out of date? A survival assay". Annals 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, Greenish CJ, Kazanjian A (2003). "Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search". International Periodical of Applied science Assessment in Health Care. xix (1): 168–78. doi:ten.1017/S0266462303000163. PMID 12701949. S2CID 42494895.
  117. ^ Roberts I, Ker One thousand, Edwards P, Beecher D, Manno D, Sydenham Due east (June 2015). "The noesis system underpinning healthcare is non fit for purpose and must change" (PDF). BMJ. 350: h2463. doi:x.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 S (November 1994). "Meta-analysis/Shmeta-assay". 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 South, Dark-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 (x): MR000035. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2. PMC8191366. PMID 25271098.
  121. ^ Roberts I. "Retraction Of Scientific Papers For Fraud Or Bias Is Simply The Tip Of The Iceberg". IFL Scientific discipline! . 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 Fundamental retracting 43 papers for imitation peer review". Retraction Watch.
  124. ^ Flinders University Library. "Search Smart: Systematic Reviews: Methodology overview". flinders.libguides.com . Retrieved 2020-09-16 .
  125. ^ Pursell East, McCrae North (2020). How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review: a guide for healthcare researchers, practitioners and students. Springer Nature. ISBN978-3-030-49672-ii. OCLC 1182880684.
  126. ^ "Half of all clinical trials accept 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. (Feb 2010). "Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases". Health Technology Assessment. xiv (8): iii, ix–eleven, 1–193. doi:10.3310/hta14080. PMID 20181324.
  128. ^ a b Iacobucci Grand (November 2016). "Nearly half of all trials run past 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). "Manufacture sponsorship and inquiry outcome". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017 (2): MR000033. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3. PMC8132492. PMID 28207928.
  130. ^ Pidgeon TE, Wellstead Thou, 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 (x): 1522–1530. doi:ten.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.018. PMID 27575881.
  131. ^ Lee SY, Sagoo H, Whitehurst K, Wellstead M, Fowler AJ, Agha RA, Orgill D (2016-03-01). "Compliance of Systematic Reviews in Plastic Surgery With the PRISMA Statement". JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery. xviii (2): 101–v. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2015.1726. PMID 26719993.
  132. ^ Akhigbe T, Zolnourian A, Bulters D (May 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews articles in brain arteriovenous malformation with PRISMA argument guidelines: Review of literature". Periodical 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 K, Fowler A, Agha R (Dec 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA argument". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 17 (i): 178. doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0450-1. PMC5745614. PMID 29281981.
  134. ^ E JY, Saldanha IJ, Canner J, Schmid CH, Le JT, Li T (May 2020). "Adjudication rather than experience of data abstraction matters more in reducing errors in abstracting data in systematic reviews". Research Synthesis Methods. 11 (3): 354–362. doi:10.1002/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 Cross-Exclusive Study". PLOS One. 11 (9): 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 (1): 21–9. doi:ten.3163/1536-5050.97.1.004. 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 (3): 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 clearly explained, systematic and reproducible?". Inquiry Synthesis Methods. five (two): 116–30. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1098. PMC5861495. PMID 26052651.
  139. ^ Briscoe Southward (March 2018). "A review of the reporting of spider web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews". Research Synthesis Methods. 9 (1): 89–99. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1275. PMID 29065246.
  140. ^ Golder Due south, Loke Y, McIntosh HM (May 2008). "Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of agin effects". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61 (5): 440–8. doi:x.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005. PMID 18394536.
  141. ^ Rethlefsen Thou, Ayala AP, Kirtley S, Koffel J, Waffenschmidt S (2019-03-04). "PRISMA-S PRISMA Search Reporting Extension". doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/YGN9W.
  142. ^ [Pre-print] Rethlefsen Thou, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel J. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Assay Search Extension (PRISMA-S) 2019: Explanation and Elaboration". osf.io. doi:10.31219/osf.io/sfc38. S2CID 243613770. Retrieved 2019-03-20 .
  143. ^ McGowan J, Sampson 1000, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C (July 2016). "PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 75: 40–six. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021. PMID 27005575.
  144. ^ Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells Thou, Thuku One thousand, 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 Grand, 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. 7 (i): ten. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-seven-10. 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:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.ten.009. PMID 19230606.
  147. ^ Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells M, Thuku Yard, 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.
  148. ^ Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al. (Jan 2016). "ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 69: 225–34. doi:x.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-iii.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): 5. doi:10.15347/WJM/2020.005. ISSN 2002-4436. Wikidata Q99440266.

External links [edit]

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

weeksfught1942.blogspot.com

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

0 Response to "Cj 300 7-1 Final Project Submission Literature Review"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel