Javascript required
Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / Which of the Following Best Describes a Systematic Review?

Which of the Following Best Describes a Systematic Review?

Comprehensive review of research literature using systematic methods

Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable belittling methods to collect secondary data and analyse information technology. Systematic reviews are a type of bear witness synthesis which codify research questions that are broad or narrow in telescopic, and identify and synthesize data that direct relate to the systematic review question.[1] While some people might associate 'systematic review' with 'meta-analysis', there are multiple kinds of review which can be divers as 'systematic' which do not involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically assess research studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively.[2] Systematic reviews are often designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current evidence relevant to a research question. For instance, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing bear witness-based medicine,[iii] and a review of existing studies is oftentimes quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new study.

While systematic reviews are oft applied in the biomedical or healthcare context, they tin be used in other areas where an assessment of a precisely divers bailiwick would be helpful.[4] Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public wellness interventions, ecology interventions,[five] 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 practice is highly recommended for professionals involved in the delivery of health care, public health and public policy.

Characteristics [edit]

Systematic reviews can be used to inform determination making in many dissimilar disciplines, such as prove-based healthcare and prove-based policy and practice.[8]

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

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

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 rate the quality of the evidence depending on the methodology used, although this is discouraged past the Cochrane Library.[10] As testify rating can be subjective, multiple people may be consulted to resolve whatever scoring differences between how evidence is rated.[11] [12] [13]

The EPPI-Middle, Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Plant have all been influential in developing methods for combining both qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews.[14] [fifteen] [16] Several reporting guidelines exist to standardise reporting near 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 fashion to ensure a transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews, and is now required for this kind of research by more 170 medical journals worldwide.[8] 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 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 Testify Syntheses: Evolving Standards) for meta-narrative and realist reviews;[19] [twenty] and eMERGe (Improving reporting of Meta-Ethnography) for meta-ethnograph.[xiv]

Developments in systematic reviews during the 21st century included realist reviews and the meta-narrative approach, both of which addressed problems 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 ane below summarises some of these, merely it is not exhaustive.[eight] [17] It is of import to note that there is not always consensus on the boundaries and distinctions between the approaches described below.

Table i: A summary of some of the types of systematic review.
Review blazon Summary
Mapping review/systematic map A mapping review maps existing literature and categorizes data. The method characterizes quantity and quality of literature, including by report design and other features. Mapping reviews can exist used to identify the demand for primary or secondary research.[8]
Meta-assay A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple quantitative studies. Using statistical methods, results are combined to provide evidence from multiple studies. The two types of information by and large used for meta-analysis in health research are individual participant data and amass data (such equally odds ratios or relative risks).
Mixed studies review/mixed methods review Refers to any combination of methods where one meaning stage is a literature review (often systematic). It can besides refer to a combination of review approaches such as combining quantitative with qualitative research.[8]
Qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis This method for integrates or compares findings from qualitative studies. The method can include 'coding' the data and looking for 'themes' or 'constructs' across studies. Multiple authors may improve the 'validity' of the data by potentially reducing private bias.[viii]
Rapid review An assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, which uses systematic review methods to search for and critically appraise existing enquiry. Rapid reviews are yet a systematic review, however parts of the process may be simplified or omitted in gild to increase rapidity.[23] Rapid reviews were used during the COVID-19 pandemic.[24]
Systematic review A systematic search for information, using a repeatable method. It includes appraising the data (for example the quality of the information) and a synthesis of enquiry data.
Systematic search and review Combines methods from a 'critical review' with a comprehensive search process. This review blazon is usually used to address broad questions to produce the almost appropriate testify synthesis. This method may or may not include quality assessment of information sources.[8]
Systematized review Include elements of systematic review process, but searching is often not as comprehensive as 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 try to search for concepts past mapping the linguistic communication and data which surrounds those concepts and adjusting the search method iteratively to synthesize show and assess the scope of an surface area of inquiry.[21] [22] This tin mean that the concept search and method (including data extraction, organisation and analysis) are refined throughout the process, sometimes requiring deviations from whatever protocol or original research programme.[25] [26] A scoping review may often be a preliminary phase before a systematic review, which 'scopes' out an area of inquiry and maps the language and key concepts to determine if a systematic review is possible or appropriate, or to lay the groundwork for a full systematic review. The goal can be to assess how much data or bear witness is bachelor regarding a certain expanse of interest.[25] [27] This process is further complicated if it is mapping concepts across multiple languages or cultures.

As a scoping review should be systematically conducted and reported (with a transparent and repeatable method), some academic publishers categorize them as a kind of 'systematic review', which may cause confusion. Scoping reviews are helpful when it is not possible to carry 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 appropriate to carry out a systematic review, and are a useful method when an area of enquiry is very broad,[28] for example, exploring how the public are involved in all stages systematic reviews.[29]

There is still a lack of clarity when defining the exact method of a scoping review equally information technology is both an iterative procedure and is notwithstanding relatively new.[30] There have been several attempts to ameliorate 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 Annals of Systematic Reviews) does not allow the submission of protocols of scoping reviews,[35] although some journals volition publish protocols for scoping reviews.[29]

Stages [edit]

While there are multiple kinds of systematic review methods, the main stages of a review tin can exist summarised into five stages:

Defining the research question [edit]

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

Searching for relevant data sources [edit]

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

The methodology section of a systematic review should listing all of the databases and commendation indices that were searched. The titles and abstracts of identified articles can be checked confronting pre-adamant criteria for eligibility and relevance. Each included report 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) statement,[xviii] or the high-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 besides as sources of unpublished literature such as clinical trial registries and grey literature collections. Key references tin can also be yielded through additional methods such equally citation searching, reference list checking (related to a search method called 'pearl growing'), manually searching information sources not indexed in the major electronic databases (sometimes called 'hand-searching'),[39] and straight contacting experts in the field.[forty]

To be systematic, searchers must use a combination of search skills and tools such as database subject headings, keyword searching, Boolean operators, proximity searching, while attempting to balance the sensitivity (systematicity) and precision (accuracy). 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-analysis is possible[46]

Relevant information are 'extracted' from the data sources according to the review method. It is of import to notation that the data extraction method is specific to the kind of data, and information extracted on 'outcomes' is simply relevant to certain types of reviews. For case, a systematic review of clinical trials might extract data about how the research was done (often called 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 data being extracted and 'combined' in a Cochrane intervention effect 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 against criteria identified at the beginning stage.[36] This can include assessing if a data source meets the eligibility criteria, and recording why decisions about inclusion or exclusion in the review were fabricated. 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 help reviewers chose appropriate tools for reviews.[48]

Analyse and combine the data [edit]

Analysing and combining information can provide an overall result from all the data. Because this combined result uses qualitative or quantitative data from all eligible sources of information, it is considered more reliable equally it provides better evidence, as the more data included in reviews, the more 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. 1 method uses a woods plot (likewise called a blobbogram).[36] In an intervention effect review, the diamond in the 'forest plot' represents the combined results of all the data included.[36]

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

Recent visualisation innovations include the albatross plot, which plots p-values confronting sample sizes, with approximate effect-size contours superimposed to facilitate assay.[50] The contours can be used to infer effect sizes from studies that have been analysed and reported in diverse ways. 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. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Cess, Evolution and Evaluations) is a transparent framework for developing and presenting summaries of show and is used to form the quality of evidence.[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 inquiry.[52] In one case these stages are complete, the review may be published, disseminated and translated into practice after being adopted as testify.

Automation of systematic reviews [edit]

Living systematic reviews are a relatively new kind of high quality, semi-automated, up-to-date online summaries of enquiry which are updated as new research becomes available.[53] The essential deviation between a living systematic review and a conventional systematic review is the publication format. Living systematic reviews are 'dynamic, persistent, online-only evidence summaries, which are updated apace and frequently'.[54]

While living systematic reviews seek to maintain current prove, the automation or semi-automation of the systematic process itself is increasingly being explored. While petty evidence exists to demonstrate it is as accurate or involves less manual try, efforts that promote grooming and using artificial intelligence for the process 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 information from several studies in the Great britain, India and South Africa of typhoid inoculation. He used a meta-analytic arroyo to aggregate the outcomes of multiple clinical studies.[57] In 1972 Archie Cochrane wrote: 'It is surely a smashing criticism of our profession that nosotros take non organised a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomised controlled trials'.[58] Critical appraisement and synthesis of research 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 inquiry synthesis applied to medicine and health.[61] Inspired by his own personal experiences as a senior medical officer in pw camps, Archie Cochrane worked to better how the scientific method was used in medical bear witness, writing in 1971: 'the full 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 illness for the meliorate'.[62] His phone call for the increased use of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews led to the creation of The Cochrane Collaboration,[63] which was founded in 1993 and named after him, edifice on the work by Iain Chalmers and colleagues in the area of pregnancy and childbirth.[64] [58]

Current utilize of systematic reviews in medicine [edit]

Many organisations around the world use systematic reviews, with the methodology depending on the guidelines beingness followed. Organisations which utilize systematic reviews in medicine and man health include the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice, UK), the Agency for Healthcare Inquiry and Quality (AHRQ, USA) and the Earth 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 as health systems interventions. When appropriate, they besides 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 half-dozen.103, and it was ranked twelfth in the Medicine, General & Internal category.[65]

At that place are several types of Cochrane Review, including:[66] [67] [68] [69]

  1. Intervention reviews appraise the benefits and harms of interventions used in healthcare and health policy.
  2. Diagnostic test accuracy reviews appraise how well a diagnostic test performs in diagnosing and detecting a particular illness. For conducting diagnostic test accurateness reviews, free software such equally MetaDTA and Cast-HSROC in the graphical user interface is bachelor.[seventy] [71]
  3. Methodology reviews address 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 accost the probable course or future outcome(s) of people with a health problem.
  6. Overviews of Systematic Reviews (OoRs) are a new blazon of report to compile multiple evidence from systematic reviews into a single document that is attainable and useful to serve equally a friendly front end end for the Cochrane Collaboration with regard to healthcare decision-making. These are sometimes referred to as 'umbrella reviews'.
  7. Living Systematic reviews are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes bachelor.[72] They are a relatively new kind of review, with methods still being developed and evaluated. They tin exist high quality, semi-automated, upward-to-date online summaries of inquiry which are updated every bit new enquiry becomes bachelor.[73] The essential departure between 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 quickly and frequently'.[74]
  8. Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis that 'accelerates the procedure of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting specific methods to produce bear witness for stakeholders in a resources-efficient fashion'.[75]
  9. Reviews of complex health interventions in complex systems review interventions and interventions delivered in complex systems to improve show synthesis and guideline development at a global, national or health systems level.[76]

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

The Cochrane Library is a drove of databases that contains dissimilar types of contained evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. It contains a database of systematic review and meta-analyses which summarize and interpret the results of multi-disciplinary inquiry. The library contains the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), which is a journal and database for systematic reviews in health intendance. The Cochrane Library also 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 also bachelor in Spanish.[79]

The Cochrane Library is owned by Cochrane. It was originally published by Update Software and now published past the share-holder owned publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. as role of Wiley Online Library. Royalties from sales of the Cochrane Library are the major source of funds for Cochrane (over £vi million in 2017). In that location are three.66 billion people around the globe who have access to the Library through national licences (national licences cost £i.5 billion[eighty]) or free provision for populations in low- and middle-income countries eligible nether the WHO's 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 involvement and citizen science in systematic reviews [edit]

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

  • Joining a collaborative volunteer attempt to assistance categorise and summarise healthcare evidence[83]
  • Data extraction and take a chance of bias cess
  • Translation of reviews into other languages

A recent systematic review of how people were involved in systematic reviews aimed to certificate the evidence-base of operations relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to utilize this evidence to depict how stakeholders accept been involved in systematic reviews.[84] 30 pct involved patients and/or carers. The ACTIVE framework provides a way to consistently describe how people are involved in systematic review, and may exist used as a way to support the controlling of systematic review authors in planning how to involve people in future reviews.[85] Standardised Information on Initiatives (STARDIT) is some other 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 projection involved people in helping place research priorities to inform future Cochrane Reviews.[88] [89] In 2014, the Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership was formalised. This supports the inclusion of relevant show within all Wikipedia medical manufactures, as well as other processes to aid ensure that medical information included in Wikipedia is of the highest quality and accuracy.[ninety]

Learning resources [edit]

Cochrane has produced many learning resource to help people sympathise what systematic reviews are, and how to do them. Most of the learning resources can be found at the 'Cochrane Grooming' webpage,[91] which likewise 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 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 (equally of Baronial 2020). In add-on, an animated storyboard version was produced and all the video resources were released in multiple versions under Creative Commons for others to employ and adapt.[95] [96] [97] [98] The Disquisitional Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) provides free learning resources to support people to assess research critically, including a checklist which contains ten questions to 'help you brand 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 start contemporary systematic reviews of literature on anti-social behavior every bit part of her piece of work, Social Science and Social Pathology.[101] [102]

Several organisations use systematic reviews in social, behavioural, and educational areas of prove-based policy, including the National Institute for Health and Intendance Excellence (NICE, UK), Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE, UK), the Agency for Healthcare Enquiry and Quality (AHRQ, Usa), the World Wellness Organization, the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), the Joanna Briggs Establish 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 brand 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 coming together in Philadelphia, USA, alluring 85 participants from 13 countries.[104]

Business organisation and economics [edit]

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

International development research [edit]

Systematic reviews are increasingly prevalent in other fields, such equally international development enquiry.[108] Subsequently, several donors (including the UK Section for International Development (DFID) and AusAid) are focusing more attention and resources on testing the appropriateness of systematic reviews in assessing the impacts of development and humanitarian interventions.[108]

Environment [edit]

The Collaboration for Ecology Evidence (CEE) works to accomplish a sustainable global surround and the conservation of biodiversity. The CEE has a periodical titled Ecology Evidence which publishes systematic reviews, review protocols and systematic maps on impacts of human activeness and the effectiveness of direction 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 comport of systematic reviews of environmental wellness evidence were just published in 2014 past the US National Toxicology Program's Office of Health Assessment and Translation[110] and the Navigation Guide at the University 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 get-go consensus recommendations on best practice, as 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 'critical features' as required to perform a systematic review, including:[113]

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

Limitations [edit]

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

Out-dated or take chances of bias [edit]

While systematic reviews are regarded every bit the strongest form of show, a 2003 review of 300 studies plant that not all systematic reviews were equally reliable, and that their reporting can exist improved by a universally agreed upon set of standards and guidelines.[114] A further study past the same group institute that of 100 systematic reviews monitored, vii% needed updating at the time of publication, another 4% within a year, and another 11% within ii years; this figure was higher in rapidly changing fields of medicine, particularly cardiovascular medicine.[115] A 2003 study suggested that extending searches beyond major databases, perhaps into grey literature, would increase the effectiveness of reviews.[116]

Some authors have highlighted problems with systematic reviews, particularly those conducted by Cochrane, noting that published reviews are oft biased, out of engagement and excessively long.[117] Cochrane reviews have been criticized equally not beingness sufficiently critical in the selection of trials and including besides many of low quality. They proposed several solutions, including limiting studies in meta-analyses and reviews to registered clinical trials, requiring that original information exist fabricated available for statistical checking, paying greater attention to sample size estimates, and eliminating dependence on just published data.

Some of these difficulties were noted as early on 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-analysis have also been noted.[119] Another business organisation is that the methods used to behave a systematic review are sometimes changed once researchers see the bachelor 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 non capricious (for example, the appointment range searched) every bit this may affect the perceived quality of the review.[124] [125]

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

The 'AllTrials' campaign highlights that around half of clinical trials have never reported results and works to improve reporting.[126] This lack of reporting has extremely serious implications for inquiry, including systematic reviews, every bit it is but possible to synthesize data of published studies. In addition, 'positive' trials were twice equally likely to be published every bit those with 'negative' results.[127] At present, it is legal for for-profit companies to conduct clinical trials and not publish the results.[128] For example, in the by 10 years 8.7 million patients have taken part in trials that accept not published results.[128] These factors mean that it is likely there is a significant publication bias, with only 'positive' or perceived favourable results being published. A recent systematic review of industry sponsorship and research outcomes ended that 'sponsorship of drug and device studies past the manufacturing visitor leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources' and that the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained past standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.[129] Systematic reviews of such a bias may amplify the event, although it is of import to annotation that the flaw is in the reporting of research by and large, not in the systematic review method.

Poor compliance with review reporting guidelines [edit]

The rapid growth of systematic reviews in contempo years has been accompanied by the attendant upshot of poor compliance with guidelines, especially in areas such as declaration of registered report protocols, funding source declaration, adventure of bias data, issues resulting from data abstraction, and clarification of articulate study objectives.[130] [131] [132] [133] [134] A host of studies have identified weaknesses in the rigour and reproducibility of search strategies in systematic reviews.[135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] To remedy this issue, a new PRISMA guideline extension called PRISMA-S is being developed to better 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 (Printing) guidelines.[143]

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

About this article [edit]

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

Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT) report [edit]

A STARDIT study near this article can be found hither:

  • Reviewed STARDIT report version at time of publishing: STARDIT Study: 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 aggregation (GMA)
  • Umbrella review

References [edit]

  1. ^ "systematic review". GET-IT 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". Journal of Public Health. 33 (1): 147–l. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdr015. PMID 21345890.
  3. ^ "What is EBM?". Centre for Bear witness Based Medicine. 2009-11-20. Archived from the original on 2011-04-06. Retrieved 2011-06-17 .
  4. ^ Ader HJ, Mellenbergh GJ, Hand DJ (2008). "Methodological quality". Advising on Enquiry Methods: A consultant'due south companion. Johannes van Kessel Publishing. ISBN978-90-79418-02-ii.
  5. ^ Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd I (2014). "On the apply of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies". Ecology 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 intendance (PDF). York: University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2008. ISBN978-1-900640-47-3 . Retrieved 17 June 2011.
  7. ^ Petticrew Grand, Roberts H (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences (PDF). Wiley Blackwell. ISBN978-1-4051-2110-one. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-06-16.
  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.ten. PMID 19490148.
  9. ^ Bearman Thousand, Dawson P (March 2013). "Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education". Medical Teaching. 47 (iii): 252–threescore. doi:10.1111/medu.12092. PMID 23398011. S2CID 11042748.
  10. ^ Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston Yard, Li T, Folio MJ, Welch VA, eds. (2019-09-20). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. training.cochrane.org. version 6.1. pp. department 4.6. Retrieved 2020-09-14 .
  11. ^ Siemieniuk R, Guyatt G. "What is Class?". 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 Grand, Oxman A, eds. (2013). Grade Handbook . Retrieved 2020-08-26 .
  14. ^ a b Flemming Thousand, Berth A, Hannes K, Cargo M, Noyes J (May 2018). "Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Grouping guidance series-paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation bear witness syntheses" (PDF). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 97: 79–85. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.022. PMID 29222060.
  15. ^ Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, Flemming K, et al. (May 2018). "Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance serial-paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation show within intervention effectiveness reviews" (PDF). Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 97: 70–78. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.029. PMID 29242095.
  16. ^ "EPPI-Centre Home". eppi.ioe.ac.uk . Retrieved 2020-06-29 .
  17. ^ a b Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming Thou, 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 Thousand, 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:10.1111/january.12092. PMC3558334. PMID 23356699.
  20. ^ Wong Thousand, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R (May 2013). "RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses". Journal of Advanced Nursing. 69 (5): 1005–22. doi:10.1111/january.12095. PMC3558331. PMID 23356726.
  21. ^ a b Arksey H, O'Malley L (2005). "Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework" (PDF). International Periodical of Social Research Methodology. 8: 19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616. S2CID 12719181.
  22. ^ a b "PRISMA". www.prisma-statement.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  23. ^ "What is a rapid review? Systematic Review Library Guides at CQ University". library.cqu.edu.au. Archived from the original on 2020-09-sixteen. Retrieved 2020-09-xvi .
  24. ^ "Habitation". 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 Evidence-Based Healthcare. 13 (three): 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-five-69. PMC2954944. PMID 20854677.
  27. ^ a b Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, et al. (Dec 2014). "Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 67 (12): 1291–4. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013. hdl:1807/73365. PMID 25034198.
  28. ^ Nunn JS, Tiller J, Fransquet P, Lacaze P (2019). "Public Interest in Global Genomics Research: 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 (1): 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 Journal of Show-Based Healthcare. 13 (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 Journal of Social Research Methodology. eight (one): 19–32. doi:x.1080/1364557032000119616. S2CID 12719181.
  34. ^ Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. (October 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". Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. University of York. Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  36. ^ a b c d e 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, Light-green S (eds.). "Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.ane.0 (updated March 2011)". The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved ii June 2016.
  39. ^ "5. Handsearching". training.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-09-xiv .
  40. ^ Papaioannou D, Sutton A, Carroll C, Booth A, Wong R (June 2010). "Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques". Health Data & Libraries Journal. 27 (2): 114–22. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00863.x. PMID 20565552.
  41. ^ Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ (June 2015). "Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 68 (6): 617–26. doi:x.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 Ane. ten (v): e0125931. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1025931K. doi:ten.1371/periodical.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". Periodical of the Medical Library Association. 104 (four): 267–277. doi:10.5195/jmla.2016.139. PMC5079487. PMID 27822147.
  44. ^ Li 50, Tian J, Tian H, Moher D, Liang F, Jiang T, et al. (September 2014). "Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and past involving a librarian". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 67 (ix): 1001–7. doi:ten.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 (x): 999–1000. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9263. PMID 25203078.
  46. ^ a b "Animated Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews?". cccrg.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-xi-24 .
  47. ^ Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, eds. (2019-09-20). "Chapter iv: Searching for and selecting studies". Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. training.cochrane.org. version 6.ane. section four.vi. Retrieved 2020-09-xiv .
  48. ^ Marshall C, Brereton P (2015-04-27). "Systematic review toolbox: a catalogue of tools to support systematic reviews". Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Technology. EASE '15. Nanjing, China: Association for Computing Machinery: 1–half-dozen. doi:x.1145/2745802.2745824. ISBN978-i-4503-3350-four. S2CID 6679820.
  49. ^ "The difference nosotros 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 evidence in systematic reviews of complex health interventions". BMJ Global Health. 4 (Suppl 1): e000858. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000858. PMC6350707. PMID 30775014.
  51. ^ "Form working grouping". www.gradeworkinggroup.org . Retrieved 2019-03-08 .
  52. ^ "Form CERQual". world wide web.cerqual.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  53. ^ Tsafnat One thousand, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E (July 2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. 3 (i): 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-exercise gap". PLOS Medicine. 11 (2): e1001603. doi:10.1371/periodical.pmed.1001603. PMC3928029. PMID 24558353.
  55. ^ Reddy SM, Patel S, Weyrich M, Fenton J, Viswanathan 1000 (October 2020). "Comparison of a traditional systematic review arroyo with review-of-reviews and semi-automation as strategies to update the evidence". Systematic Reviews. 9 (1): 243. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01450-2. PMC7574591. PMID 33076975.
  56. ^ Tsafnat Thousand, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E (July 2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. 3 (1): 74. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-74. PMC4100748. PMID 25005128.
  57. ^ British Medical Journal Publishing Group (1904-11-05). "Report on Certain Enteric Fever Inoculation Statistics". BMJ. 2 (2288): 1243–1246. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.2288.1243. ISSN 0007-1447. PMC2355479. PMID 20761760. S2CID 30331745.
  58. ^ a b "1.i.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 West Lab. for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco, CA) (1978). Meta-Analysis of Inquiry on the Relationship of Class-Size and Achievement. The Class Size and Educational activity Project. Washington, D.C.]: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.
  60. ^ "History of Systematic Reviews". Show for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Center (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 Journal of Medicine. 327 (iv): 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-xvi.
  63. ^ Shah HM, Chung KC (September 2009). "Archie Cochrane and his vision for bear witness-based medicine". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 124 (iii): 982–viii. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b03928. PMC2746659. PMID 19730323.
  64. ^ Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2011). Testing treatments : better research for better healthcare (2nd ed.). London: Pinter & Martin. ISBN978-1-905177-48-half dozen. OCLC 778837501.
  65. ^ The Cochrane Library. 2015 impact cistron. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Retrieved 2016-07-20.
  66. ^ Review Director (RevMan) [Computer plan]. Version v.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
  67. ^ "Principal folio". Cochrane Library.
  68. ^ Silva V, Grande AJ, Carvalho AP, Martimbianco AL, Riera R (2015). "Overview of systematic reviews - a new blazon of report. Part II". 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 blazon of written report: part I: why and for whom?". Sao Paulo Medical Journal. 130 (six): 398–404. doi:ten.1590/S1516-31802012000600007. PMID 23338737.
  70. ^ Freeman SC, Kerby CR, Patel A, Cooper NJ, Quinn T, Sutton AJ (2019). "Evolution 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:ten.1186/s12874-019-0724-ten. PMC6471890. PMID 30999861.
  71. ^ Banno M, Tsujimoto Y, Luo Y, Miyakoshi C, Kataoka Y (2021). "Bandage-HSROC: A Web Application for Calculating the Summary Points of Diagnostic Examination Accuracy From the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Feature Model". Cureus. xiii (2): e13257. doi:10.7759/cureus.13257. PMC7953362. PMID 33717762.
  72. ^ "Living systematic reviews". community.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  73. ^ Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E (July 2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. 3 (one): 74. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-three-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 testify-exercise gap". PLOS Medicine. 11 (two): e1001603. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603. PMC3928029. PMID 24558353.
  75. ^ "Cochrane'south work on Rapid Reviews in response to COVID-19". world wide web.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 circuitous 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 six October 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 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 Thou (Jan 2019). "Has Cochrane lost its mode?". BMJ. 364: k5302. doi:ten.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 S, John D, Smith M, Orr N. "Standardised Data on Initiatives - STARDIT: Alpha Version". osf.io. doi:10.31219/osf.io/5q47h. S2CID 242815262. Retrieved 2020-08-xx .
  87. ^ Newman M (2019-01-03). "Has Cochrane lost its manner?". BMJ. 364: k5302. doi:x.1136/bmj.k5302. PMID 30606713. S2CID 58623482.
  88. ^ Synnot AJ, Tong A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan Grand, et al. (April 2019). "Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health advice and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders". Health Research Policy and Systems. 17 (i): 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). "Inquiry priorities in health advice and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders". BMJ Open up. eight (v): e019481. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019481. PMC5942413. PMID 29739780.
  90. ^ "The Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership in 2016". Cochrane . Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  91. ^ "Welcome". grooming.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 October 2016, Seoul, South Korea. Wiley. 2016-x-23. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD201602.
  95. ^ "Creating a successful online animation resources: the 'what are systematic reviews?' video". Cochrane Community. 2019-06-25. Archived from the original on 2019-06-25. Retrieved 2019-06-25 .
  96. ^ "Blithe Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews?". cccrg.cochrane.org. Cochrane Consumers and Advice. Retrieved 1 June 2016.
  97. ^ Nunn J, Synnot A, Mcdonald S, Allen M, Hill Due south (2015). "Building partnerships with the public by learning nearly Cochrane bear witness". 23rd Cochrane Colloquium 2015. doi:ten.13140/RG.2.i.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". Disquisitional Appraisal Skills Programme . 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 (2d ed.). London: Sage. p. 13.
  102. ^ Oakley, Ann (2011). A critical woman : Barbara Wootton, social scientific discipline and public policy in the twentieth century. London: Bloomsbury Bookish. ISBN9781849664707.
  103. ^ "About The states". The Campbell Collaboration. Archived from the original on Feb 3, 2014. Retrieved March 26, 2014.
  104. ^ "History of the Campbell Collaboration". Campbell Collaboration . Retrieved 2021-04-15 . {{cite spider web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  105. ^ Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003). "Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management cognition by means of systematic review". British Journal of Management. 14 (3): 207–222. CiteSeerX10.1.ane.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". Periodical of Supply Concatenation Management. 53 (4): 67–85. doi:10.1111/jscm.12145.
  107. ^ "About the states". methods.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  108. ^ a b Hagen-Zanker J, Duvendack M, Mallett R, Slater R, Carpenter Due south, Tromme M (Jan 2012). "Making systematic reviews work for international evolution enquiry". Overseas Development Institute.
  109. ^ "Environmental Evidence: Reliable evidence, informed decisions, ameliorate surround". 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 Prove Integration for Literature-Based Environmental Health Scientific discipline Assessments". Environmental Health Perspectives. 122 (7): 711–718. doi:10.1289/ehp.1307972. PMC4080517. PMID 24755067.
  111. ^ Woodruff, Tracey J.; Sutton, Patrice (2014). "The Navigation Guide Systematic Review Methodology: A Rigorous and Transparent Method for Translating Environmental Wellness Science into Better Health Outcomes". Ecology Wellness 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, Ballad 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 behave of systematic reviews in toxicology and environmental wellness inquiry (COSTER)". Environment International. 143: 105926. doi:ten.1016/j.envint.2020.105926. PMID 32653802. S2CID 220502683.
  113. ^ Van der Mierden S, Tsaioun M, 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. 4 (iii): e78. doi:10.1371/periodical.pmed.0040078. PMC1831728. PMID 17388659.
  115. ^ Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D (August 2007). "How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival assay". Register of Internal Medicine. 147 (four): 224–33. doi:ten.7326/0003-4819-147-iv-200708210-00179. PMID 17638714. S2CID 3988259.
  116. ^ Savoie I, Helmer D, Green CJ, Kazanjian A (2003). "Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search". International Journal of Technology Cess in Health Care. 19 (ane): 168–78. doi:ten.1017/S0266462303000163. PMID 12701949. S2CID 42494895.
  117. ^ Roberts I, Ker K, Edwards P, Beecher D, Manno D, Sydenham E (June 2015). "The knowledge organization underpinning healthcare is not 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-assay/Shmeta-analysis". American Journal of Epidemiology. 140 (9): 771–eight. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117324. PMID 7977286.
  120. ^ Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan Chiliad, Kramer South, 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 Scientific discipline! . Retrieved 29 June 2015.
  122. ^ Ferguson C (2015-04-02). "Retraction and republication for Lancet Resp Med tracheostomy paper". Retraction Sentry . Retrieved 29 June 2015.
  123. ^ Ferguson C (2015-03-26). "BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for faux peer review". Retraction Picket.
  124. ^ Flinders University Library. "Search Smart: Systematic Reviews: Methodology overview". flinders.libguides.com . Retrieved 2020-09-xvi .
  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. ^ "Half of all clinical trials accept never reported results". AllTrials. 2015-08-20. Retrieved 2019-03-08 .
  127. ^ Song F, Parekh Due south, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. (Feb 2010). "Dissemination and publication of inquiry findings: an updated review of related biases". Health Technology Cess. fourteen (eight): iii, nine–eleven, i–193. doi:10.3310/hta14080. PMID 20181324.
  128. ^ a b Iacobucci G (November 2016). "Nearly half of all trials run by major sponsors in past decade are unpublished". BMJ. 355: i5955. doi:10.1136/bmj.i5955. PMID 27815253. S2CID 43604202.
  129. ^ Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L, et al. (Cochrane Methodology Review Group) (February 2017). "Industry sponsorship and research upshot". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017 (2): MR000033. doi:x.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 argument 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 Thou, Wellstead Thou, 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): 101–5. 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 statement 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 (December 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA argument". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 17 (ane): 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". Inquiry Synthesis Methods. xi (3): 354–362. doi:x.1002/jrsm.1396. PMID 31955502. S2CID 210829764.
  135. ^ Koffel JB, Rethlefsen ML (2016-09-26). Thombs BD (ed.). "Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Exclusive Study". PLOS 1. 11 (ix): 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). "Assay of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 97 (ane): 21–9. doi:ten.3163/1536-5050.97.i.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". Journal of the Medical Library Clan. 105 (3): 233–239. doi:ten.5195/jmla.2017.246. PMC5490700. PMID 28670210.
  138. ^ Mullins MM, DeLuca JB, Crepaz Northward, Lyles CM (June 2014). "Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): are the searches conspicuously explained, systematic and reproducible?". Research Synthesis Methods. five (2): 116–30. doi:x.1002/jrsm.1098. PMC5861495. PMID 26052651.
  139. ^ Briscoe S (March 2018). "A review of the reporting of 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 Southward, Loke Y, McIntosh HM (May 2008). "Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects". Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 61 (five): 440–8. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005. PMID 18394536.
  141. ^ Rethlefsen G, Ayala AP, Kirtley S, Koffel J, Waffenschmidt South (2019-03-04). "PRISMA-S PRISMA Search Reporting Extension". doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/YGN9W.
  142. ^ [Pre-print] Rethlefsen M, Kirtley Due south, Waffenschmidt Due south, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel J. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis Search Extension (PRISMA-S) 2019: Explanation and Elaboration". osf.io. doi:ten.31219/osf.io/sfc38. S2CID 243613770. Retrieved 2019-03-20 .
  143. ^ McGowan J, Sampson Grand, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C (July 2016). "Printing Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement". Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 75: 40–vi. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021. PMID 27005575.
  144. ^ Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. (September 2017). "AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisement tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or not-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both". BMJ. 358: j4008. doi:ten.1136/bmj.j4008. PMC5833365. PMID 28935701.
  145. ^ Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers Thousand, Andersson Due north, Hamel C, et al. (February 2007). "Evolution of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to appraise the methodological quality of systematic reviews". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 7 (1): 10. doi:ten.1186/1471-2288-7-10. 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 (x): 1013–20. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.ten.009. PMID 19230606.
  147. ^ Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells Thousand, Thuku Grand, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. (September 2017). "AMSTAR 2: a disquisitional 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. (January 2016). "ROBIS: A new tool to assess take a chance of bias in systematic reviews was developed". Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 69: 225–34. doi:x.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005. PMC4687950. PMID 26092286.
  • This article was submitted to WikiJournal of Medicine for external bookish 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 November 2020). "What are Systematic Reviews?" (PDF). WikiJournal of Medicine. vii (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 about 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 set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses"
  • PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation
  • Animated Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews? - Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group
  • Sysrev - a free platform with open access systematic reviews.

cockerillarpher.blogspot.com

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