Systematic review

Last updated

A systematic review is considered the most trusted form of evidence Hierarchy of Evidence.png
A systematic review is considered the most trusted form of evidence

A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. [1] A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic (in the scientific literature), then analyzes, describes, critically appraises and summarizes interpretations into a refined evidence-based conclusion. [1] [2] For example, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials is a way of summarizing and implementing evidence-based medicine. [3] Systematic reviews, sometimes along with meta-analyses, are generally considered the highest level of evidence in medical research. [4] [5]

Contents

While a systematic review may be applied in the biomedical or health care context, it may also be used where an assessment of a precisely defined subject can advance understanding in a field of research. [6] A systematic review may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions, [7] social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations. [8] [9]

Systematic reviews are closely related to meta-analyses, and often the same instance will combine both (being published with a subtitle of "a systematic review and meta-analysis"). The distinction between the two is that a meta-analysis uses statistical methods to induce a single number from the pooled data set (such as an effect size), whereas the strict definition of a systematic review excludes that step. However, in practice, when one is mentioned, the other may often be involved, as it takes a systematic review to assemble the information that a meta-analysis analyzes, and people sometimes refer to an instance as a systematic review, even if it includes the meta-analytical component.

An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is common for professionals in health care, public health, and public policy. [1]

Systematic reviews contrast with a type of review often called a narrative review. Systematic reviews and narrative reviews both review the literature (the scientific literature), but the term literature review without further specification refers to a narrative review.

Characteristics

A systematic review can be designed to provide a thorough summary of current literature relevant to a research question. [1] A systematic review uses a rigorous and transparent approach for research synthesis, with the aim of assessing and, where possible, minimizing bias in the findings. While many systematic reviews are based on an explicit quantitative meta-analysis of available data, there are also qualitative reviews and other types of mixed-methods reviews that adhere to standards for gathering, analyzing, and reporting evidence. [10]

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 by the Cochrane Library. [11] As evidence rating can be subjective, multiple people may be consulted to resolve any scoring differences between how evidence is rated. [12] [13] [14]

The EPPI-Centre, Cochrane, and the Joanna Briggs Institute have been influential in developing methods for combining both qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. [15] [16] [17] Several reporting guidelines exist to standardise reporting about 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) statement [18] suggests a standardized way to ensure a transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews, and is now required for this kind of research by more than 170 medical journals worldwide. [19] The latest version of this commonly used statement corresponds to PRISMA 2020 (the respective article was published in 2021). [20] 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. [19] A list of PRISMA guideline extensions is hosted by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. [21] However, the PRISMA guidelines have been found to be limited to intervention research and the guidelines have to be changed in order to fit non-intervention research. As a result, Non-Interventional, Reproducible, and Open (NIRO) Systematic Reviews was created to counter this limitation. [22]

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; [23] [24] and eMERGe (Improving reporting of Meta-Ethnography) for meta-ethnograph. [15]

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. [25] [26]

Types

There are over 30 types of systematic review and Table 1 below non-exhaustingly summarises some of these. [19] [18] There is not always consensus on the boundaries and distinctions between the approaches described below.

Table 1: A summary of some of the types of systematic review
Review typeSummary
Mapping review/systematic mapA mapping review maps existing literature and categorizes data. The method characterizes the quantity and quality of literature, including by study design and other features. Mapping reviews can be used to identify the need for primary or secondary research. [19]
Meta-analysisA meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple quantitative studies. Using statistical methods, results are combined to provide evidence from multiple studies. The two types of data generally used for meta-analysis in health research are individual participant data and aggregate data (such as odds ratios or relative risks).
Mixed studies review/mixed methods reviewRefers to any combination of methods where one significant stage is a literature review (often systematic). It can also refer to a combination of review approaches, such as combining quantitative with qualitative research. [19]
Qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesisThis method 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 individual bias. [19]
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 research. Rapid reviews are still a systematic review, however parts of the process may be simplified or omitted in order to increase rapidity. [27] Rapid reviews were used during the COVID-19 pandemic. [28]
Systematic reviewA systematic search for data using a repeatable method. It includes appraising the data (for example, the quality of the data) and a synthesis of research data.
Systematic search and reviewCombines methods from a 'critical review' with a comprehensive search process. This review type is usually used to address broad questions to produce the most appropriate evidence synthesis. This method may or may not include quality assessment of data sources. [19]
Systematized reviewInclude elements of the 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

Scoping reviews are distinct from systematic reviews in several ways. A scoping review is an attempt to search for concepts by mapping the language and data which surrounds those concepts and adjusting the search method iteratively to synthesize evidence and assess the scope of an area of inquiry. [25] [26] This can mean that the concept search and method (including data extraction, organisation and analysis) are refined throughout the process, sometimes requiring deviations from any protocol or original research plan. [29] [30] A scoping review may often be a preliminary stage 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 evidence is available regarding a certain area of interest. [29] [31] 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 inquiry is very broad, [32] for example, exploring how the public are involved in all stages systematic reviews. [33]

There is still 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. [34] There have been several attempts to improve the standardisation of the method, [30] [29] [31] [35] for example via a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). [36] PROSPERO (the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) does not permit the submission of protocols of scoping reviews, [37] although some journals will publish protocols for scoping reviews. [33]

Stages

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

Defining the research question

Some reported that the 'best practices' involve 'defining an answerable question' and publishing the protocol of the review before initiating it to reduce the risk of unplanned research duplication and to enable transparency and consistency between methodology and protocol. [38] [39] Clinical reviews of quantitative data are often structured using the mnemonic 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 sources

Relevant criteria can include selecting research that is of good quality and answers the defined question. [38] The search strategy should be 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 articles can be checked against predetermined 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, [21] or the standards of Cochrane. [40]

Common information sources used in searches include scholarly databases of peer-reviewed articles such as MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed, as well as sources of unpublished literature such as clinical trial registries and grey literature collections. Key references can also be yielded through additional methods such as 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'), [41] and directly contacting experts in the field. [42]

To be systematic, searchers must use a combination of search skills and tools such as database subject headings, keyword searching, Boolean operators, and proximity searching while attempting to balance sensitivity (systematicity) and precision (accuracy). Inviting and involving an experienced information professional or librarian can improve the quality of systematic review search strategies and reporting. [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]

'Extraction' of relevant data

A visualisation of data being 'extracted' and 'combined' in a Cochrane intervention effect review where a meta-analysis is possible Extraction machine.gif
A visualisation of data being 'extracted' and 'combined' in a Cochrane intervention effect review where a meta-analysis is possible

Relevant data are 'extracted' from the data sources according to the review method. 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 example, 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). [38] Relevant data are being extracted and 'combined' in an intervention effect review, where a meta-analysis is possible. [48]

Assess the eligibility of the data

This stage involves assessing the eligibility of data for inclusion in the review by judging it against criteria identified at the first stage. [38] This can include assessing if a data source meets the eligibility criteria and recording why decisions about inclusion or exclusion in the review were made. Software programmes can be used to support the selection process, including text mining tools and machine learning, which can automate aspects of the process. [49] The 'Systematic Review Toolbox' is a community-driven, web-based catalog of tools, to help reviewers chose appropriate tools for reviews. [50]

Analyse and combine the data

Analysing and combining data can provide an overall result from all the data. Because this combined result may use qualitative or quantitative data from all eligible sources of data, it is considered more reliable as 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 data from multiple sources. A review might use quantitative data, or might employ a qualitative meta-synthesis, which synthesises data from qualitative studies. A review may also bring together the findings from quantitative and qualitative studies in a mixed methods or overarching synthesis. [51] The combination of data from a meta-analysis can sometimes be visualised. One method uses a forest plot (also called a blobbogram). [38] In an intervention effect review, the diamond in the 'forest plot' represents the combined results of all the data included. [38] An example of a 'forest plot' is the Cochrane Collaboration logo. [38] The logo is a forest plot of one of the first reviews which showed that corticosteroids given to women who are about to give birth prematurely can save the life of the newborn child. [52]

Recent visualisation innovations include the albatross plot, which plots p-values against sample sizes, with approximate effect-size contours superimposed to facilitate analysis. [53] 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.

Communication and dissemination

Once these stages are complete, the review may be published, disseminated, and translated into practice after being adopted as evidence. The UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) defines dissemination as "getting the findings of research to the people who can make use of them to maximise the benefit of the research without delay". [54]

Some users do not have time to invest in reading large and complex documents and/or may lack awareness or be unable to access newly published research. Researchers are, therefore, developing skills to use creative communication methods such as illustrations, blogs, infographics, and board games to share the findings of systematic reviews. [55]

Automation

Living systematic reviews are a newer kind of semi-automated, up-to-date online summaries of research that are updated as new research becomes available. [56] The difference 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 rapidly and frequently". [57]

The automation or semi-automation of the systematic process itself is increasingly being explored. While little evidence exists to demonstrate it is as accurate or involves less manual effort, efforts that promote training and using artificial intelligence for the process are increasing. [58] [56]

Research fields

Health and medicine

Current use of systematic reviews in medicine

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 Care Excellence (NICE, UK), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, US), and the World 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 as well as health systems interventions. They sometimes 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. [59]

There are several types of systematic reviews, including: [60] [61] [62] [63]

  1. Intervention reviews assess the benefits and harms of interventions used in healthcare and health policy.
  2. Diagnostic test accuracy reviews assess how well a diagnostic test performs in diagnosing and detecting a particular disease. For conducting diagnostic test accuracy reviews, free software such as MetaDTA and CAST-HSROC in the graphical user interface is available. [64] [65]
  3. Methodology reviews address 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 course or future outcome(s) of people with a health problem.
  6. Overviews of Systematic Reviews (OoRs) compile multiple pieces of evidence from systematic reviews into a single accessible document, sometimes referred to as umbrella reviews.
  7. Living systematic reviews are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. [66]
  8. Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis that "accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting specific methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner". [67]
  9. Reviews of complex health interventions in complex systems are to improve evidence synthesis and guideline development. [68]

Patient and public involvement in systematic reviews

There are various ways patients and the public can be involved in producing systematic reviews and other outputs. Tasks for public members can be organised as 'entry level' or higher. Tasks include:

  • Joining a collaborative volunteer effort to help categorise and summarise healthcare evidence [69]
  • Data extraction and risk of bias assessment
  • Translation of reviews into other languages

A systematic review of how people were involved in systematic reviews aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. [70] Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. The ACTIVE framework provides a way to describe how people are involved in systematic review and may be used as a way to support systematic review authors in planning people's involvement. [71] Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT) is another proposed way of reporting who has been involved in which tasks during research, including systematic reviews. [72] [73]

There has been some criticism of how Cochrane prioritises systematic reviews. [74] Cochrane has a project that involved people in helping identify research priorities to inform Cochrane Reviews. [75] [76] In 2014, the Cochrane–Wikipedia partnership was formalised. [77]

Environmental health and toxicology

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 published in 2014 by the US National Toxicology Program's Office of Health Assessment and Translation [78] and the Navigation Guide at the University of California San Francisco's Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment. [79] Uptake has since been rapid, with the estimated number of systematic reviews in the field doubling since 2016 and the first consensus recommendations on best practice, as a precursor to a more general standard, being published in 2020. [80]

Social, behavioural, and educational

In 1959, social scientist and social work educator Barbara Wootton published one of the first contemporary systematic reviews of literature on anti-social behavior as part of her work, Social Science and Social Pathology. [81] [82]

Several organisations use systematic reviews in social, behavioural, and educational areas of evidence-based policy, including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, UK), Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE, UK), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, US), the World 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. [83]

Others

Some attempts to transfer the procedures from medicine to business research have been made, [84] including a step-by-step approach, [85] [86] and developing a standard procedure for conducting systematic literature reviews in business and economics.

Systematic reviews are increasingly prevalent in other fields, such as international development research. [87] Subsequently, several donors (including the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and AusAid) are focusing more on testing the appropriateness of systematic reviews in assessing the impacts of development and humanitarian interventions. [87]

The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) has a journal titled Environmental Evidence, which publishes systematic reviews, review protocols, and systematic maps on the impacts of human activity and the effectiveness of management interventions. [88]

Review tools

A 2022 publication identified 24 systematic review tools and ranked them by inclusion of 30 features deemed most important when performing a systematic review in accordance with best practices. The top six software tools (with at least 21/30 key features) are all proprietary paid platforms, typically web-based, and include: [89]

The Cochrane Collaboration provides a handbook for systematic reviewers of interventions which "provides guidance to authors for the preparation of Cochrane Intervention reviews." [40] The Cochrane Handbook also outlines steps for preparing a systematic review [40] and forms the basis of two sets of standards for the conduct and reporting of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR; Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews). [90] It also contains guidance on integrating patient-reported outcomes into reviews.

Limitations

Out-dated or risk of bias

While systematic reviews are regarded as the strongest form of evidence, a 2003 review of 300 studies found that not all systematic reviews were equally reliable, and that their reporting can be improved by a universally agreed upon set of standards and guidelines. [91] A further study by the same group found that of 100 systematic reviews monitored, 7% needed updating at the time of publication, another 4% within a year, and another 11% within 2 years; this figure was higher in rapidly changing fields of medicine, especially cardiovascular medicine. [92] A 2003 study suggested that extending searches beyond major databases, perhaps into grey literature, would increase the effectiveness of reviews. [93]

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. [94] Cochrane reviews have been criticized as not being sufficiently critical in the selection of trials and including too many of low quality. They proposed several solutions, including limiting studies in meta-analyses and reviews to registered clinical trials, requiring that original data be made available for statistical checking, paying greater attention to sample size estimates, and eliminating dependence on only published data. Some of these difficulties were noted as early 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.

— Altman DG, 1994 [95]

Methodological limitations of meta-analysis have also been noted. [96] Another concern is that the methods used to conduct a systematic review are sometimes changed once researchers see the available trials they are going to include. [97] Some websites have described retractions of systematic reviews and published reports of studies included in published systematic reviews. [98] [99] [100] Eligibility criteria that is arbitrary may affect the perceived quality of the review. [101] [102]

Limited reporting of data from human studies

The AllTrials campaign report that around half of clinical trials have never reported results and works to improve reporting. [103] 'Positive' trials were twice as likely to be published as those with 'negative' results. [104]

As of 2016, it is legal for-profit companies to conduct clinical trials and not publish the results. [105] For example, in the past 10 years, 8.7 million patients have taken part in trials that have not published results. [105] 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 concluded that "sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources" and that the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'risk of bias' assessments. [106]

Poor compliance with review reporting guidelines

The rapid growth of systematic reviews in recent years has been accompanied by the attendant issue of poor compliance with guidelines, particularly in areas such as declaration of registered study protocols, funding source declaration, risk of bias data, issues resulting from data abstraction, and description of clear study objectives. [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] A host of studies have identified weaknesses in the rigour and reproducibility of search strategies in systematic reviews. [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] To remedy this issue, a new PRISMA guideline extension called PRISMA-S is being developed. [118] Furthermore, tools and checklists for peer-reviewing search strategies have been created, such as the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) guidelines. [119]

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 appraisal tools to evaluate systematic reviews have been designed. The two most popular measurement instruments and scoring tools for systematic review quality assessment are AMSTAR 2 (a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews) [120] [121] [122] and ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews); however, these are not appropriate for all systematic review types. [123] Some recent peer-reviewed articles have carried out comparisons between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools. [124] [125]

History

The first publication that is now recognized as equivalent to a modern systematic review was a 1753 paper by James Lind, which reviewed all of the previous publications about scurvy. [126] Systematic reviews appeared only sporadically until the 1980s, and became common after 2000. [126] More than 10,000 systematic reviews are published each year. [126]

History in medicine

A 1904 British Medical Journal paper by Karl Pearson collated data from several studies in the UK, India and South Africa of typhoid inoculation. He used a meta-analytic approach to aggregate the outcomes of multiple clinical studies. [127] In 1972, Archie Cochrane wrote: "It is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organised a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomised controlled trials". [128] Critical appraisal and synthesis of research findings in a systematic way emerged in 1975 under the term 'meta analysis'. [129] [130] Early syntheses were conducted in broad areas of public policy and social interventions, with systematic research synthesis applied to medicine and health. [131] Inspired by his own personal experiences as a senior medical officer in prisoner of war camps, Archie Cochrane worked to improve the scientific method in medical evidence. [132] His call for the increased use of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews led to the creation of The Cochrane Collaboration, [133] 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. [134] [128]

See also

Related Research Articles

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. ... [It] means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research." The aim of EBM is to integrate the experience of the clinician, the values of the patient, and the best available scientific information to guide decision-making about clinical management. The term was originally used to describe an approach to teaching the practice of medicine and improving decisions by individual physicians about individual patients.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Meta-analysis</span> Statistical method that summarizes and/or integrates data from multiple sources

Meta-analysis is a method of synthesis of quantitative data from multiple independent studies addressing a common research question. An important part of this method involves computing a combined effect size across all of the studies. As such, this statistical approach involves extracting effect sizes and variance measures from various studies. By combining these effect sizes the statistical power is improved and can resolve uncertainties or discrepancies found in individual studies. Meta-analyses are integral in supporting research grant proposals, shaping treatment guidelines, and influencing health policies. They are also pivotal in summarizing existing research to guide future studies, thereby cementing their role as a fundamental methodology in metascience. Meta-analyses are often, but not always, important components of a systematic review.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randomized controlled trial</span> Form of scientific experiment

A randomized controlled trial is a form of scientific experiment used to control factors not under direct experimental control. Examples of RCTs are clinical trials that compare the effects of drugs, surgical techniques, medical devices, diagnostic procedures, diets or other medical treatments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cochrane (organisation)</span> British nonprofit for reviews of medical research (formed 1993)

Cochrane is a British international charitable organisation formed to synthesize medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. It includes 53 review groups that are based at research institutions worldwide. Cochrane has over 37,000 volunteer experts from around the world.

In a blind or blinded experiment, information which may influence the participants of the experiment is withheld until after the experiment is complete. Good blinding can reduce or eliminate experimental biases that arise from a participants' expectations, observer's effect on the participants, observer bias, confirmation bias, and other sources. A blind can be imposed on any participant of an experiment, including subjects, researchers, technicians, data analysts, and evaluators. In some cases, while blinding would be useful, it is impossible or unethical. For example, it is not possible to blind a patient to their treatment in a physical therapy intervention. A good clinical protocol ensures that blinding is as effective as possible within ethical and practical constraints.

A hierarchy of evidence, comprising levels of evidence (LOEs), that is, evidence levels (ELs), is a heuristic used to rank the relative strength of results obtained from experimental research, especially medical research. There is broad agreement on the relative strength of large-scale, epidemiological studies. More than 80 different hierarchies have been proposed for assessing medical evidence. The design of the study and the endpoints measured affect the strength of the evidence. In clinical research, the best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Systematic reviews of completed, high-quality randomized controlled trials – such as those published by the Cochrane Collaboration – rank the same as systematic review of completed high-quality observational studies in regard to the study of side effects. Evidence hierarchies are often applied in evidence-based practices and are integral to evidence-based medicine (EBM).

In epidemiology, reporting bias is defined as "selective revealing or suppression of information" by subjects. In artificial intelligence research, the term reporting bias is used to refer to people's tendency to under-report all the information available.

Peter Christian Gøtzsche is a Danish physician, medical researcher, and former leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. He is a co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration and has written numerous reviews for the organization. His membership in Cochrane was terminated by its Governing Board of Trustees on 25 September 2018. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Gøtzsche was criticised for spreading disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Ioannidis</span> Greek-American scientist (born 1965)

John P. A. Ioannidis is a Greek-American physician-scientist, writer and Stanford University professor who has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, and clinical research. Ioannidis studies scientific research itself - in other words, meta-research - primarily in clinical medicine and the social sciences.

Critical appraisal in evidence based medicine, is the use of explicit, transparent methods to assess the data in published research, applying the rules of evidence to factors such as internal validity, adherence to reporting standards, conclusions, generalizability and risk-of-bias. Critical appraisal methods form a central part of the systematic review process. They are used in evidence synthesis to assist clinical decision-making, and are increasingly used in evidence-based social care and education provision.

The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health research Network is an international initiative aimed at promoting transparent and accurate reporting of health research studies to enhance the value and reliability of medical research literature. The EQUATOR Network is hosted by the University of Oxford, and was established with the goals of raising awareness of the importance of good reporting of research, assisting in the development, dissemination and implementation of reporting guidelines for different types of study designs, monitoring the status of the quality of reporting of research studies in the health sciences literature, and conducting research relating to issues that impact the quality of reporting of health research studies. The Network acts as an "umbrella" organisation, bringing together developers of reporting guidelines, medical journal editors and peer reviewers, research funding bodies, and other key stakeholders with a mutual interest in improving the quality of research publications and research itself. The EQUATOR Network comprises five centres at the University of Oxford, Bond University, Paris Descartes University, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, and Hong Kong Baptiste University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses</span> Scientific reporting standard

PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items aimed at helping scientific authors to report a wide array of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, primarily used to assess the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. PRISMA focuses on ways in which authors can ensure a transparent and complete reporting of this type of research. The PRISMA standard superseded the earlier QUOROM standard. It offers the replicability of a systematic literature review. Researchers have to figure out research objectives that answer the research question, states the keywords, a set of exclusion and inclusion criteria. In the review stage, relevant articles were searched, irrelevant ones are removed. Articles are analyzed according to some pre-defined categories.

Alessandro Liberati was an Italian healthcare researcher and clinical epidemiologist, and founder of the Italian Cochrane Centre.

Tom Jefferson is a British epidemiologist, based in Rome, Italy, who works for the Cochrane Collaboration. Jefferson is an author and editor of the Cochrane Collaboration's acute respiratory infections group, as well as part of four other Cochrane groups. He was also an advisor to the Italian National Agency for Regional Health Services.

Lesley Ann Stewart is a Scottish academic whose research interests are in the development and application of evidence synthesis methods, particularly systematic reviews and individual participant data meta-analysis. She is head of department for the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York and director for the NIHR Evidence Synthesis Programme. She was one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993. Stewart served as president of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology (2013-2016) and was a founding co-editor in chief of the academic journal Systematic Reviews (2010–2021).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cynthia Mulrow</span> American physician (born 1953)

Cynthia Mulrow is an American physician and scholar from Edinburg, Texas. She has regularly contributed academic research on many topics to the medical community. Her academic work mainly focuses on systematic reviews and evidence reports, research methodology, and chronic medical conditions.

The GRADE approach is a method of assessing the certainty in evidence and the strength of recommendations in health care. It provides a structured and transparent evaluation of the importance of outcomes of alternative management strategies, acknowledgment of patients and the public values and preferences, and comprehensive criteria for downgrading and upgrading certainty in evidence. It has important implications for those summarizing evidence for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and clinical practice guidelines as well as other decision makers.

Individual participant data is raw data from individual participants, and is often used in the context of meta-analysis.

Allegiance bias in behavioral sciences is a bias resulted from the investigator's or researcher's allegiance to a specific school of thought. Researchers/investigators have been exposed to many types of branches of psychology or schools of thought. Naturally they adopt a school or branch that fits with their paradigm of thinking. More specifically, allegiance bias is when this leads therapists, researchers, etc. believing that their school of thought or treatment is superior to others. Their superior belief to these certain schools of thought can bias their research in effective treatments trials or investigative situations leading to allegiance bias. Reason being is that they may have devoted their thinking to certain treatments they have seen work in their past experiences. This can lead to errors in interpreting the results of their research. Their “pledge” to stay within their own paradigm of thinking may affect their ability to find more effective treatments to help the patient or situation they are investigating.

Research synthesis or evidencesynthesis is the process of combining the results of multiple primary research studies aimed at testing the same conceptual hypothesis. It may be applied to either quantitative or qualitative research. Its general goals are to make the findings from multiple different studies more generalizable and applicable.

References

Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg This article was submitted to WikiJournal of Medicine for external academic peer review in 2019 ( reviewer reports ). The updated content was reintegrated into the Wikipedia page under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license ( 2020 ). The version of record as reviewed is: Jack Nunn; Steven Chang; 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. STARDIT report Q101116128.

  1. 1 2 3 4 "What is a systematic review?". Temple University Libraries. 6 June 2022. Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  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): 147–150. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdr015 . PMID   21345890.
  3. ↑ "What is EBM?". Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. 20 November 2009. Archived from the original on 6 April 2011. Retrieved 17 June 2011.
  4. ↑ Wallace, Sowdhamini S.; Barak, Gal; Truong, Grace; Parker, Michelle W. (1 August 2022). "Hierarchy of Evidence Within the Medical Literature". Hospital Pediatrics. 12 (8): 745. doi:10.1542/hpeds.2022-006690. The quality of evidence from medical research is partially deemed by the hierarchy of study designs. On the lowest level, the hierarchy of study designs begins with animal and translational studies and expert opinion, and then ascends to descriptive case reports or case series, followed by analytic observational designs such as cohort studies, then randomized controlled trials, and finally systematic reviews and meta-analyses as the highest quality evidence.
  5. ↑ Murad, M Hassan; Asi, Noor; Alsawas, Mouaz; Alahdab, Fares (August 2016). "New evidence pyramid". Evidence Based Medicine. 21 (4): 125. doi:10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401. A pyramid has expressed the idea of hierarchy of medical evidence for so long, that not all evidence is the same. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been placed at the top of this pyramid for several good reasons.
  6. ↑ Ader HJ, Mellenbergh GJ, Hand DJ (2008). "Methodological quality". Advising on Research Methods: A consultant's companion. Johannes van Kessel Publishing. ISBN   978-90-79418-02-2.
  7. ↑ Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd I (2014). "On the use of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies". Environmental Science & Policy. 42: 67–77. Bibcode:2014ESPol..42...67B. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.05.010 .
  8. ↑ Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (PDF). York: University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2008. ISBN   978-1-900640-47-3 . Retrieved 17 June 2011.
  9. ↑ Petticrew M, Roberts H (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences (PDF). Wiley Blackwell. ISBN   978-1-4051-2110-1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 June 2015.
  10. ↑ Bearman M, Dawson P (March 2013). "Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education". Medical Education. 47 (3): 252–260. doi: 10.1111/medu.12092 . PMID   23398011. S2CID   11042748.
  11. ↑ Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, eds. (20 September 2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. version 6.1. pp. section 4.6. Retrieved 14 September 2020.{{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  12. ↑ Siemieniuk R, Guyatt G. "What is GRADE?". BMJ Best Practice. Retrieved 26 August 2020.
  13. ↑ Adèr HJ (2008). Advising on Research Methods: A Consultant's Companion. Johannes van Kessel Publishing. ISBN   978-90-79418-01-5.
  14. ↑ Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, eds. (2013). GRADE Handbook . Retrieved 26 August 2020.
  15. 1 2 Flemming K, Booth A, Hannes K, Cargo M, Noyes J (May 2018). "Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses" (PDF). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 97: 79–85. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.022. PMID   29222060.
  16. ↑ Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, Flemming K, et al. (May 2018). "Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews" (PDF). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 97: 70–78. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.029. PMID   29242095.
  17. ↑ "EPPI-Centre Home". eppi.ioe.ac.uk. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  18. 1 2 Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P, Van Der Wilt GJ, et al. (2016). Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. p. 32. OCLC   944453327.
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Grant MJ, Booth A (June 2009). "A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies". Health Information and Libraries Journal. 26 (2): 91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x . PMID   19490148.
  20. ↑ Page, Matthew J.; McKenzie, Joanne E.; Bossuyt, Patrick M.; Boutron, Isabelle; Hoffmann, Tammy C.; Mulrow, Cynthia D.; Shamseer, Larissa; Tetzlaff, Jennifer M.; Akl, Elie A.; Brennan, Sue E.; Chou, Roger; Glanville, Julie; Grimshaw, Jeremy M.; Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn; Lalu, Manoj M. (29 March 2021). "The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews". BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.). 372: n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71. ISSN   1756-1833. PMC   8005924 . PMID   33782057.
  21. 1 2 "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement". www.equator-network.org. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
  22. ↑ Topor, Marta; Pickering, Jade S.; Mendes, Ana Barbosa; Bishop, Dorothy V. M.; Büttner, Fionn; Elsherif, Mahmoud M.; Evans, Thomas R.; Henderson, Emma L.; Kalandadze, Tamara; Nitschke, Faye T.; Staaks, Janneke P. C.; Akker, Olmo R. van den; Yeung, Siu Kit; Zaneva, Mirela; Lam, Alison (10 July 2023). "An integrative framework for planning and conducting Non-Intervention, Reproducible, and Open Systematic Reviews (NIRO-SR)". Meta-Psychology. 7. doi: 10.15626/MP.2021.2840 . hdl: 11250/3106491 . ISSN   2003-2714.
  23. ↑ Wong G, 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/jan.12092. PMC   3558334 . PMID   23356699.
  24. ↑ Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R (May 2013). "RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses". Journal of Advanced Nursing. 69 (5): 1005–1022. doi:10.1111/jan.12095. PMC   3558331 . PMID   23356726.
  25. 1 2 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. hdl:11250/2477738. S2CID   12719181.
  26. 1 2 "PRISMA". www.prisma-statement.org. Retrieved 1 July 2020.
  27. ↑ "What is a rapid review? Systematic Review Library Guides at CQ University". library.cqu.edu.au. Archived from the original on 16 September 2020. Retrieved 16 September 2020.
  28. ↑ "Home". covidrapidreviews.cochrane.org. Retrieved 1 July 2020.
  29. 1 2 3 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 (3): 141–146. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050 . PMID   26134548. S2CID   8860037.
  30. 1 2 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 . PMC   2954944 . PMID   20854677.
  31. 1 2 Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, et al. (December 2014). "Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 67 (12): 1291–1294. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013. hdl: 1807/73365 . PMID   25034198. S2CID   205843946.
  32. ↑ Nunn JS, Tiller J, Fransquet P, Lacaze P (2019). "Public Involvement in Global Genomics Research: A Scoping Review". Frontiers in Public Health. 7: 79. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00079 . PMC   6467093 . PMID   31024880.
  33. 1 2 Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, et al. (21 April 2017). "Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects". Research Involvement and Engagement. 3 (1): 9. doi: 10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 . PMC   5611627 . PMID   29062534.
  34. ↑ Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E (November 2018). "Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 18 (1): 143. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x . PMC   6245623 . PMID   30453902.
  35. ↑ Arksey H, O'Malley L (1 February 2005). "Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework" (PDF). International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 8 (1): 19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616. hdl:11250/2477738. S2CID   12719181.
  36. ↑ 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.
  37. ↑ "PROSPERO". Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. University of York. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  38. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Animated Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews?". cccrg.cochrane.org. Cochrane Consumers and Communication. Retrieved 1 June 2016.
  39. ↑ Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. (January 2015). "Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement". Systematic Reviews. 4 (1): 1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 . PMC   4320440 . PMID   25554246.
  40. 1 2 3 Higgins JP, Green S (eds.). "Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011)". The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  41. ↑ "5. Handsearching". training.cochrane.org. Retrieved 14 September 2020.
  42. ↑ Papaioannou D, Sutton A, Carroll C, Booth A, Wong R (June 2010). "Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques". Health Information and Libraries Journal. 27 (2): 114–122. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00863.x . PMID   20565552.
  43. ↑ 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): 617–626. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025. PMID   25766056.
  44. ↑ Koffel JB (4 May 2015). "Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors". PLOS ONE. 10 (5): e0125931. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1025931K. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125931 . PMC   4418838 . PMID   25938454.
  45. ↑ Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J (October 2016). "Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 104 (4): 267–277. doi:10.5195/jmla.2016.139. PMC   5079487 . PMID   27822147.
  46. ↑ Li L, Tian J, Tian H, Moher D, Liang F, Jiang T, et al. (September 2014). "Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 67 (9): 1001–1007. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.003. PMID   24841794.
  47. ↑ Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH (September 2014). "Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles". JAMA. 312 (10): 999–1000. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9263. PMID   25203078.
  48. 1 2 "Animated Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews?". cccrg.cochrane.org. Retrieved 24 November 2020.
  49. ↑ Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, eds. (20 September 2019). "Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies". Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. version 6.1. section 4.6. Retrieved 14 September 2020.{{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  50. ↑ Marshall C, Brereton P (27 April 2015). "Systematic review toolbox". Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. EASE '15. Nanjing, China: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 1–6. doi:10.1145/2745802.2745824. ISBN   978-1-4503-3350-4. S2CID   6679820.
  51. ↑ Thompson Coon J, Gwernan-Jones R, Garside R, Nunns M, Shaw L, Melendez-Torres GJ, Moore D (July 2020). "Developing methods for the overarching synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence: The interweave synthesis approach". Research Synthesis Methods. 11 (4): 507–521. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1383. PMC   7383598 . PMID   31725951.
  52. ↑ "The difference we make". www.cochrane.org. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
  53. ↑ Higgins JP, López-López JA, Becker BJ, Davies SR, Dawson S, Grimshaw JM, et al. (1 January 2019). "Synthesising quantitative evidence in systematic reviews of complex health interventions". BMJ Global Health. 4 (Suppl 1): e000858. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000858. PMC   6350707 . PMID   30775014.
  54. ↑ "How to disseminate your research". www.nihr.ac.uk. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
  55. ↑ Coon JT, Orr N, Shaw L, Hunt H, Garside R, Nunns M, et al. (April 2022). "Bursting out of our bubble: using creative techniques to communicate within the systematic review process and beyond". Systematic Reviews. 11 (1): 56. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-01935-2 . PMC   8977563 . PMID   35379331.
  56. 1 2 Tsafnat G, 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 . PMC   4100748 . PMID   25005128.
  57. ↑ Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, Thomas J, Higgins JP, Mavergames C, Gruen RL (February 2014). "Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap". PLOS Medicine. 11 (2): e1001603. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603 . PMC   3928029 . PMID   24558353.
  58. ↑ Reddy SM, Patel S, Weyrich M, Fenton J, Viswanathan M (October 2020). "Comparison of a traditional systematic review approach 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 . PMC   7574591 . PMID   33076975.
  59. ↑ The Cochrane Library. 2015 impact factor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Archived 2 July 2016 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved 2016-07-20.
  60. ↑ Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
  61. ↑ "Main page". Cochrane Library.
  62. ↑ Silva V, Grande AJ, Carvalho AP, Martimbianco AL, Riera R (2015). "Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II". Sao Paulo Medical Journal = Revista Paulista de Medicina. 133 (3): 206–217. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2013.8150015 . PMC   10876375 . PMID   25388685.
  63. ↑ Silva V, Grande AJ, Martimbianco AL, Riera R, Carvalho AP (2012). "Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?". Sao Paulo Medical Journal = Revista Paulista de Medicina. 130 (6): 398–404. doi: 10.1590/S1516-31802012000600007 . PMC   10522321 . PMID   23338737.
  64. ↑ Freeman SC, Kerby CR, Patel A, Cooper NJ, Quinn T, Sutton AJ (April 2019). "Development of an interactive web-based tool to conduct and interrogate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: MetaDTA". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 19 (1): 81. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0724-x . PMC   6471890 . PMID   30999861.
  65. ↑ Banno M, Tsujimoto Y, Luo Y, Miyakoshi C, Kataoka Y (February 2021). "CAST-HSROC: A Web Application for Calculating the Summary Points of Diagnostic Test Accuracy From the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic Model". Cureus. 13 (2): e13257. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13257 . PMC   7953362 . PMID   33717762.
  66. ↑ "Living systematic reviews". community.cochrane.org. Retrieved 1 July 2020.
  67. ↑ "Cochrane's work on Rapid Reviews in response to COVID-19". www.cochrane.org. Retrieved 1 July 2020.
  68. ↑ Norris SL, Rehfuess EA, Smith H, Tunçalp Ö, Grimshaw JM, Ford NP, Portela A (1 January 2019). "Complex health interventions in complex systems: improving the process and methods for evidence-informed health decisions". BMJ Global Health. 4 (Suppl 1): e000963. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000963. PMC   6350736 . PMID   30775018.
  69. ↑ "Cochrane crowd". crowd.cochrane.org. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
  70. ↑ Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, et al. (November 2018). "Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review". Systematic Reviews. 7 (1): 208. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0 . PMC   6260873 . PMID   30474560.
  71. ↑ Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, et al. (October 2019). "Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews" (PDF). Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 24 (4): 245–255. doi:10.1177/1355819619841647. PMID   30997859. S2CID   121348214.
  72. ↑ [Pre-print] Nunn J, Shafee T, Chang S, Stephens R, Elliott J, Oliver S, John D, Smith M, Orr N. "Standardised Data on Initiatives - STARDIT: Alpha Version". osf.io. doi:10.31219/osf.io/5q47h. S2CID   242815262 . Retrieved 20 August 2020.
  73. ↑ Nunn JS, Shafee T, Chang S, Stephens R, Elliott J, Oliver S, et al. (July 2022). "Standardised data on initiatives-STARDIT: Beta version". Research Involvement and Engagement. 8 (1): 31. doi: 10.1186/s40900-022-00363-9 . PMC   9294764 . PMID   35854364.
  74. ↑ Newman, Melanie (3 January 2019). "Has Cochrane lost its way?". BMJ. 364: k5302. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5302. PMID   30606713. S2CID   58623482.
  75. ↑ Synnot AJ, Tong A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan M, et al. (April 2019). "Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders". Health Research Policy and Systems. 17 (1): 45. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0444-z . PMC   6489310 . PMID   31036016.
  76. ↑ Synnot A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan M, Horvat L, et al. (May 2018). "Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders". BMJ Open. 8 (5): e019481. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019481. PMC   5942413 . PMID   29739780.
  77. ↑ "The Cochrane-Wikipedia partnership in 2016". Cochrane. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  78. ↑ Rooney AA, Boyles AL, Wolfe MS, Bucher JR, Thayer KA (July 2014). "Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments". Environmental Health Perspectives. 122 (7): 711–718. Bibcode:2014EnvHP.122..711R. doi:10.1289/ehp.1307972. PMC   4080517 . PMID   24755067.
  79. ↑ Woodruff TJ, Sutton P (October 2014). "The Navigation Guide systematic review methodology: a rigorous and transparent method for translating environmental health science into better health outcomes". Environmental Health Perspectives. 122 (10): 1007–1014. Bibcode:2014EnvHP.122.1007W. doi:10.1289/ehp.1307175. PMC   4181919 . PMID   24968373.
  80. ↑ Whaley P, Aiassa E, Beausoleil C, Beronius A, Bilotta G, Boobis A, et al. (October 2020). "Recommendations for the conduct of systematic reviews in toxicology and environmental health research (COSTER)". Environment International. 143: 105926. Bibcode:2020EnInt.14305926W. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105926 . hdl: 2066/229303 . PMID   32653802. S2CID   220502683.
  81. ↑ Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J (2017). An Introduction to Systematic Reviews (2nd ed.). London: Sage. p. XIII.
  82. ↑ Oakley A (2011). A critical woman : Barbara Wootton, social science and public policy in the twentieth century. London: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN   9781849664707.
  83. ↑ "History of the Campbell Collaboration". Campbell Collaboration. Retrieved 15 April 2021.
  84. ↑ Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003). "Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review". British Journal of Management. 14 (3): 207–222. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.622.895 . doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
  85. ↑ Durach CF, Kembro J, Wieland A (2017). "A New Paradigm for Systematic Literature Reviews in Supply Chain Management". Journal of Supply Chain Management. 53 (4): 67–85. doi:10.1111/jscm.12145.
  86. ↑ Linnenluecke, Martina K; Marrone, Mauricio; Singh, Abhay K (May 2020). "Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses". Australian Journal of Management . 45 (2): 175–194. doi:10.1177/0312896219877678. ISSN   0312-8962.
  87. 1 2 Hagen-Zanker J, Duvendack M, Mallett R, Slater R, Carpenter S, Tromme M (January 2012). "Making systematic reviews work for international development research". Overseas Development Institute.
  88. ↑ "Environmental Evidence: Reliable evidence, informed decisions, better environment". www.environmentalevidence.org. Retrieved 1 July 2020.
  89. ↑ Cowie K, Rahmatullah A, Hardy N, Holub K, Kallmes K (2022). "Web-Based Software Tools for Systematic Literature Review in Medicine: Systematic Search and Feature Analysis". JMIR. 10 (5): e33219. doi: 10.2196/33219 . PMC   9112080 . PMID   35499859.
  90. ↑ "Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR)". Cochrane. Retrieved 6 October 2014.
  91. ↑ 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/journal.pmed.0040078 . PMC   1831728 . PMID   17388659.
  92. ↑ 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 analysis". Annals of Internal Medicine. 147 (4): 224–233. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179. PMID   17638714. S2CID   3988259.
  93. ↑ Savoie I, Helmer D, Green CJ, Kazanjian A (2003). "Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search". International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 19 (1): 168–178. doi:10.1017/S0266462303000163. PMID   12701949. S2CID   42494895.
  94. ↑ Roberts I, Ker K, Edwards P, Beecher D, Manno D, Sydenham E (June 2015). "The knowledge system underpinning healthcare is not fit for purpose and must change" (PDF). BMJ. 350: h2463. doi:10.1136/bmj.h2463. PMID   26041754. S2CID   33523612.
  95. ↑ Altman DG (January 1994). "The scandal of poor medical research". BMJ. 308 (6924): 283–284. doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283. PMC   2539276 . PMID   8124111.
  96. ↑ Shapiro S (November 1994). "Meta-analysis/Shmeta-analysis". American Journal of Epidemiology. 140 (9): 771–778. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117324. PMID   7977286.
  97. ↑ Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, 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. PMC   8191366 . PMID   25271098.
  98. ↑ Roberts I (12 June 2015). "Retraction Of Scientific Papers For Fraud Or Bias Is Just The Tip Of The Iceberg". IFL Science!. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
  99. ↑ Ferguson C (2 April 2015). "Retraction and republication for Lancet Resp Med tracheostomy paper". Retraction Watch. Retrieved 29 June 2015.
  100. ↑ Ferguson C (26 March 2015). "BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer review". Retraction Watch.
  101. ↑ Flinders University Library. "Search Smart: Systematic Reviews: Methodology overview". flinders.libguides.com. Retrieved 16 September 2020.
  102. ↑ Pursell E, McCrae N (2020). How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review: a guide for healthcare researchers, practitioners and students. Springer Nature. ISBN   978-3-030-49672-2. OCLC   1182880684.
  103. ↑ "Half of all clinical trials have never reported results". AllTrials. 20 August 2015. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
  104. ↑ Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. (February 2010). "Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases". Health Technology Assessment. 14 (8): iii, ix–xi, 1–193. doi: 10.3310/hta14080 . PMID   20181324.
  105. 1 2 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.
  106. ↑ Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L, et al. (Cochrane Methodology Review Group) (February 2017). "Industry sponsorship and research outcome". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017 (2): MR000033. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3. PMC   8132492 . PMID   28207928.
  107. ↑ Pidgeon TE, Wellstead G, Sagoo H, Jafree DJ, Fowler AJ, Agha RA (October 2016). "An assessment of the compliance of systematic review articles published in craniofacial surgery with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review". Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. 44 (10): 1522–1530. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2016.07.018. PMID   27575881.
  108. ↑ Lee SY, Sagoo H, Whitehurst K, Wellstead G, Fowler AJ, Agha RA, Orgill D (1 March 2016). "Compliance of Systematic Reviews in Plastic Surgery With the PRISMA Statement". JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery. 18 (2): 101–105. doi: 10.1001/jamafacial.2015.1726 . PMID   26719993.
  109. ↑ Akhigbe T, Zolnourian A, Bulters D (May 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews articles in brain arteriovenous malformation with PRISMA statement guidelines: Review of literature". Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 39: 45–48. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2017.02.016. PMID   28246008. S2CID   27738264.
  110. ↑ Lee SY, Sagoo H, Farwana R, Whitehurst K, Fowler A, Agha R (December 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 17 (1): 178. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0450-1 . PMC   5745614 . PMID   29281981.
  111. ↑ 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.
  112. ↑ Koffel JB, Rethlefsen ML (26 September 2016). Thombs BD (ed.). "Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study". PLOS ONE. 11 (9): e0163309. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1163309K. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163309 . PMC   5036875 . PMID   27669416.
  113. ↑ 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): 21–29. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.004. PMC   2605027 . PMID   19158999.
  114. ↑ Toews LC (July 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 105 (3): 233–239. doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.246. PMC   5490700 . PMID   28670210.
  115. ↑ 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?". Research Synthesis Methods. 5 (2): 116–130. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1098. PMC   5861495 . PMID   26052651.
  116. ↑ 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. S2CID   206155997.
  117. ↑ Golder S, Loke Y, McIntosh HM (May 2008). "Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61 (5): 440–448. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005. PMID   18394536.
  118. ↑ Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB (April 2021). "PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 109 (2): 174–200. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/YGN9W. PMC   8270366 . PMID   34285662.
  119. ↑ McGowan J, Sampson M, 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: 40–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 . PMID   27005575.
  120. ↑ Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. (September 2017). "AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both". BMJ. 358: j4008. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008. PMC   5833365 . PMID   28935701.
  121. ↑ Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. (February 2007). "Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 7 (1): 10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 . PMC   1810543 . PMID   17302989.
  122. ↑ 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): 1013–1020. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009. PMID   19230606. S2CID   5935312.
  123. ↑ Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al. (January 2016). "ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 69: 225–234. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005. PMC   4687950 . PMID   26092286.
  124. ↑ Perry, R.; Whitmarsh, A.; Leach, V.; Davies, P. (25 October 2021). "A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2". Systematic Reviews. 10 (1): 273. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01819-x . ISSN   2046-4053. PMC   8543959 . PMID   34696810.
  125. ↑ Pieper, Dawid; Puljak, Livia; González-Lorenzo, Marien; Minozzi, Silvia (April 2019). "Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 108: 26–33. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.004. ISSN   1878-5921. PMID   30543911.
  126. 1 2 3 Clarke, Mike; Chalmers, Iain (August 2018). "Reflections on the history of systematic reviews". BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 23 (4): 121–122. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110968 . ISSN   2515-446X. PMID   29921711. S2CID   49311760.
  127. ↑ "Report on Certain Enteric Fever Inoculation Statistics". British Medical Journal. 2 (2288). British Medical Journal Publishing Group: 1243–1246. November 1904. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.2288.1243. PMC   2355479 . PMID   20761760. S2CID   30331745.
  128. 1 2 "1.1.2 A brief history of Cochrane". community.cochrane.org. Archived from the original on 17 January 2019. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  129. ↑ Glass GV, Smith ML, et al. (Far West Lab. for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco, CA) (1978). Meta-Analysis of Research on the Relationship of Class-Size and Achievement. The Class Size and Instruction Project. Washington, D.C.]: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.
  130. ↑ "History of Systematic Reviews". Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre). Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  131. ↑ Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC (July 1992). "Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction". The New England Journal of Medicine. 327 (4): 248–254. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199207233270406 . PMID   1614465.
  132. ↑ Cochrane AL (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services (PDF). [London]: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. ISBN   0-900574-17-8. OCLC   741462. Archived from the original on 16 September 2020.
  133. ↑ Shah HM, Chung KC (September 2009). "Archie Cochrane and his vision for evidence-based medicine". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 124 (3): 982–988. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b03928. PMC   2746659 . PMID   19730323.
  134. ↑ Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2011). Testing treatments : better research for better healthcare (Second ed.). London: Pinter & Martin. ISBN   978-1-905177-48-6. OCLC   778837501.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.