Home  ›  Which of the Following Is Not True About Systemic Review

Which of the Following Is Not True About Systemic Review

Written By Monday, April 18, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Comprehensive review of research literature using systematic methods

Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable analytical methods to collect secondary data and analyse it. Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis which formulate inquiry questions that are broad or narrow in scope, and identify and synthesize data that straight chronicle to the systematic review question.[one] While some people might associate 'systematic review' with 'meta-analysis', in that location are multiple kinds of review which can be defined as 'systematic' which exercise not involve a meta-assay. Some systematic reviews critically assess inquiry studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively.[ii] Systematic reviews are oft designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current evidence relevant to a research question. For example, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing evidence-based medicine,[3] and a review of existing studies is oft quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new report.

While systematic reviews are often practical in the biomedical or healthcare context, they can be used in other areas where an assessment of a precisely divers subject would be helpful.[iv] Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions,[5] social interventions, adverse furnishings, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations.[6] [7]

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

Characteristics [edit]

Systematic reviews tin can exist used to inform decision making in many unlike disciplines, such as evidence-based healthcare and prove-based policy and practise.[8]

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

A systematic review uses a rigorous and transparent approach for enquiry 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 as well qualitative reviews and other types of mixed-methods reviews which adhere to standards for gathering, analyzing and reporting evidence.[9]

Systematic reviews of quantitative data or mixed-method reviews sometimes apply statistical techniques (meta-analysis) to combine results of eligible studies. Scoring levels are sometimes used to rate the quality of the evidence depending on the methodology used, although this is discouraged by the Cochrane Library.[10] Every bit testify rating can be subjective, multiple people may be consulted to resolve whatever scoring differences between how evidence is rated.[xi] [12] [thirteen]

The EPPI-Centre, Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Institute accept all been influential in developing methods for combining both qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews.[xiv] [15] [sixteen] Several reporting guidelines exist to standardise reporting well-nigh 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[17] suggests a standardized mode to ensure a transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews, and is at present required for this kind of research past more than 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.[eight] A list of PRISMA guideline extensions is hosted by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of wellness Research) Network.[eighteen]

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

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

Types [edit]

There are over 30 types of systematic review and the Tabular array 1 below summarises some of these, just it is not exhaustive.[8] [17] Information technology is of import to note that there is not always consensus on the boundaries and distinctions between the approaches described below.

Tabular array 1: A summary of some of the types of systematic review.
Review type Summary
Mapping review/systematic map A mapping review maps existing literature and categorizes information. The method characterizes quantity and quality of literature, including past study blueprint and other features. Mapping reviews can be used to identify the need for primary or secondary research.[viii]
Meta-analysis A meta-analysis is a statistical assay 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 more often than not used for meta-assay in wellness enquiry are individual participant information and aggregate data (such as odds ratios or relative risks).
Mixed studies review/mixed methods review Refers to whatever combination of methods where one significant stage is a literature review (often systematic). It can also refer to a combination of review approaches such every bit combining quantitative with qualitative inquiry.[8]
Qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis This method for integrates or compares findings from qualitative studies. The method can include 'coding' the information and looking for 'themes' or 'constructs' across studies. Multiple authors may improve the 'validity' of the data by potentially reducing individual bias.[8]
Rapid review An assessment of what is already known nigh a policy or do effect, which uses systematic review methods to search for and critically appraise existing research. Rapid reviews are notwithstanding a systematic review, however parts of the process may be simplified or omitted in order to increase rapidity.[23] Rapid reviews were used during the COVID-19 pandemic.[24]
Systematic review A systematic search for information, using a repeatable method. It includes appraising the data (for example the quality of the data) and a synthesis of research data.
Systematic search and review Combines methods from a 'critical review' with a comprehensive search process. This review type is ordinarily used to accost broad questions to produce the most appropriate testify synthesis. This method may or may not include quality assessment of data sources.[viii]
Systematized review Include elements of systematic review process, merely searching is often not equally comprehensive as a systematic review and may not include quality assessments of data sources.

Scoping reviews [edit]

Scoping reviews are distinct from systematic reviews in several important ways. A scoping review is an attempt to search for concepts by mapping the language and information which surrounds those concepts and adjusting the search method iteratively to synthesize show and assess the scope of an area of research.[21] [22] This can mean that the concept search and method (including data extraction, organization and analysis) are refined throughout the procedure, sometimes requiring deviations from any protocol or original research plan.[25] [26] A scoping review may often be a preliminary stage earlier a systematic review, which 'scopes' out an area of inquiry and maps the language and cardinal concepts to determine if a systematic review is possible or appropriate, or to lay the groundwork for a total systematic review. The goal tin be to assess how much data or evidence is bachelor regarding a sure 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 bookish 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 enquiry findings, for example, when in that location are no published clinical trials in the surface area of inquiry. Scoping reviews are helpful when determining if information technology is possible or appropriate to conduct out a systematic review, and are a useful method when an area of inquiry is very broad,[28] for instance, exploring how the public are involved in all stages systematic reviews.[29]

There is all the same 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.[30] There have been several attempts to improve the standardisation of the method,[31] [32] [27] [33] for example via a PRISMA guideline extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).[34] PROSPERO (the International Prospective Annals of Systematic Reviews) does not let the submission of protocols of scoping reviews,[35] although some journals volition publish protocols for scoping reviews.[29]

Stages [edit]

While in that location are multiple kinds of systematic review methods, the primary stages of a review tin be summarised into v stages:

Defining the inquiry question [edit]

Defining an accountable question and like-minded an objective method is required to design a useful systematic review.[36] Best practise recommends publishing the protocol of the review earlier initiating it to reduce the risk of unplanned research duplication and to enable consistency between methodology and protocol.[37] Clinical reviews of quantitative data are oft structured using the acronym PICO, which stands for 'Population or Problem', 'Intervention or Exposure', 'Comparison' and 'Effect', with other variations existing for other kinds of inquiry. 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 stage in developing a rigorous systematic review. Relevant criteria tin include merely selecting inquiry that is good quality and answers the defined question.[36] The search strategy should be designed to retrieve literature that matches the protocol'due south specified inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The methodology department 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-determined criteria for eligibility and relevance. Each included study may exist assigned an objective assessment of methodological quality, preferably by using methods conforming to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement,[18] or the loftier-quality standards of Cochrane.[38]

Common data sources used in searches include scholarly databases of peer-reviewed articles such equally MEDLINE, Web of Scientific discipline, Embase, and PubMed as well as sources of unpublished literature such as clinical trial registries and grey literature collections. Central references can also be yielded through additional methods such as commendation searching, reference list checking (related to a search method called 'pearl growing'), manually searching information sources not indexed in the major electronic databases (sometimes chosen 'mitt-searching'),[39] and directly contacting experts in the field.[forty]

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

[edit]

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

Relevant information are 'extracted' from the data sources co-ordinate to the review method. It is important to note that the information 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 information about how the research was done (ofttimes chosen the method or 'intervention'), who participated in the research (including how many people), how it was paid for (for example funding sources) and what happened (the outcomes).[36] Effectively, relevant information being extracted and 'combined' in a Cochrane intervention issue review, where a meta-analysis is possible.[46]

Assess the eligibility of the information [edit]

This phase involves assessing the eligibility of data for inclusion in the review, by judging it against criteria identified at the outset 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 tin be used to support the selection process including text mining tools and machine learning, which can automate aspects of the procedure.[47] The 'Systematic Review Toolbox' is a customs driven, web-based catalogue of tools, to help reviewers chose appropriate tools for reviews.[48]

Analyse and combine the data [edit]

Analysing and combining data can provide an overall effect from all the data. Because this combined result uses qualitative or quantitative data from all eligible sources of data, information technology is considered more reliable as it provides improve show, equally the more than data included in reviews, the more confident nosotros 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 utilize a qualitative meta-synthesis, which synthesises data from qualitative studies. The combination of information from a meta-analysis tin sometimes be visualised. One method uses a wood plot (also called a blobbogram).[36] In an intervention effect review, the diamond in the 'forest plot' represents the combined results of all the information 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 nearly to give nascence prematurely can salve the life of the newborn kid.[49]

Contempo visualisation innovations include the boundness plot, which plots p-values against sample sizes, with approximate outcome-size contours superimposed to facilitate analysis.[50] The contours can be used to infer effect sizes from studies that take been analysed and reported in diverse ways. Such visualisations may take advantages over other types when reviewing complex interventions.

Assessing the quality (or certainty) of prove is an important function of some reviews. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) is a transparent framework for developing and presenting summaries of evidence and is used to form the quality of prove.[51] The GRADE-CERQual (Conviction in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative inquiry) is used to provide a transparent method for assessing the conviction of show from reviews or qualitative research.[52] In one case these stages are complete, the review may be published, disseminated and translated into practice afterward being adopted equally bear witness.

Automation of systematic reviews [edit]

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

While living systematic reviews seek to maintain current evidence, the automation or semi-automation of the systematic process itself is increasingly being explored. While little bear witness 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.[55] [56]

Inquiry fields [edit]

Medicine and human health [edit]

History of systematic reviews in medicine [edit]

A 1904 British Medical Journal paper past Karl Pearson collated data from several studies in the Great britain, India and South Africa of typhoid inoculation. He used a meta-analytic approach to amass the outcomes of multiple clinical studies.[57] In 1972 Archie Cochrane wrote: 'It is surely a great criticism of our profession that nosotros have non organised a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomised controlled trials'.[58] Disquisitional appraisal and synthesis of inquiry findings in a systematic way emerged in 1975 under the term 'meta analysis'.[59] [threescore] Early syntheses were conducted in broad areas of public policy and social interventions, with systematic research synthesis applied to medicine and wellness.[61] Inspired by his ain personal experiences as a senior medical officer in prisoner of state of war camps, Archie Cochrane worked to improve how the scientific method was used in medical evidence, writing in 1971: 'the general scientific problem with which we are primarily concerned is that of testing a hypothesis that a certain treatment alters the natural history of a disease for the better'.[62] His telephone call for the increased use of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews led to the creation of The Cochrane Collaboration,[63] which was founded in 1993 and named later on him, building on the work by Iain Chalmers and colleagues in the area of pregnancy and childbirth.[64] [58]

Current use of systematic reviews in medicine [edit]

Many organisations effectually the world use systematic reviews, with the methodology depending on the guidelines beingness followed. Organisations which apply systematic reviews in medicine and human health include the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Dainty, U.k.), the Agency for Healthcare Enquiry and Quality (AHRQ, United states of america) and the Globe Health Organization. Most notable among international organisations is Cochrane, a group of over 37,000 specialists in healthcare who systematically review randomised trials of the effects of prevention, treatments and rehabilitation equally well every bit wellness systems interventions. When appropriate, they also include the results of other types of research. Cochrane Reviews are published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews department of the Cochrane Library. The 2015 impact factor for The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was 6.103, and it was ranked 12th in the Medicine, General & Internal category.[65]

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

  1. Intervention reviews assess the benefits and harms of interventions used in healthcare and health policy.
  2. Diagnostic examination accuracy reviews assess how well a diagnostic test performs in diagnosing and detecting a particular affliction. For conducting diagnostic examination accuracy reviews, free software such as MetaDTA and Bandage-HSROC in the graphical user interface is bachelor.[70] [71]
  3. Methodology reviews address issues relevant to how systematic reviews and clinical trials are conducted and reported.
  4. Qualitative reviews synthesize qualitative prove to address questions on aspects other than effectiveness.
  5. Prognosis reviews address the probable course or futurity outcome(s) of people with a health trouble.
  6. Overviews of Systematic Reviews (OoRs) are a new type of study to compile multiple evidence from systematic reviews into a single document that is attainable and useful to serve as a friendly front end for the Cochrane Collaboration with regard to healthcare determination-making. These are sometimes referred to every bit 'umbrella reviews'.
  7. Living Systematic reviews are continually updated, incorporating relevant new show as it becomes available.[72] They are a relatively new kind of review, with methods still beingness developed and evaluated. They can be loftier quality, semi-automatic, upwardly-to-date online summaries of research which are updated every bit new research becomes bachelor.[73] The essential difference between a 'living systematic review' and a conventional systematic review is the publication format. Living systematic reviews are 'dynamic, persistent, online-only evidence summaries, which are updated rapidly and frequently'.[74]
  8. Rapid reviews are a form of cognition synthesis that 'accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting specific methods to produce bear witness for stakeholders in a resources-efficient mode'.[75]
  9. Reviews of complex health interventions in complex systems review interventions and interventions delivered in complex systems to ameliorate evidence synthesis and guideline development at a global, national or health systems level.[76]

The Cochrane Collaboration provides a handbook for systematic reviewers of interventions which 'provides guidance to authors for the preparation of Cochrane Intervention reviews.'[38] The Cochrane Handbook besides outlines the primal steps for preparing a systematic review[38] and forms the footing of two 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 bear witness synthesis, economic reviews and integrating patient-reported outcomes into reviews.

The Cochrane Library is a collection of databases that contains different types of independent 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 enquiry. 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 likewise 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 besides bachelor in Spanish.[79]

The Cochrane Library is owned by Cochrane. Information technology was originally published by Update Software and now published by the share-holder owned publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. as function of Wiley Online Library. Royalties from sales of the Cochrane Library are the major source of funds for Cochrane (over £6 meg in 2017). At that place are 3.66 billion people around the globe who take access to the Library through national licences (national licences cost £i.5 billion[80]) or gratis provision for populations in low- and middle-income countries eligible nether the WHO's HINARI initiative.[80] Authors must pay an boosted fee for their review to be 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' can be involved in doing, associated with producing systematic reviews and other outputs. Tasks tin be organised equally 'entry level' or higher. Tasks include:

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

A recent systematic review of how people were involved in systematic reviews aimed to certificate the evidence-base relating to stakeholder interest in systematic reviews and to use this prove to draw how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.[84] Thirty pct involved patients and/or carers. The Active framework provides a way to consistently describe how people are involved in systematic review, and may be used every bit a way to support the controlling of systematic review authors in planning how to involve people in futurity reviews.[85] Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT) is some other proposed way of reporting who has been involved in which tasks during inquiry, including systematic reviews.[86]

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

Learning resources [edit]

Cochrane has produced many learning resources to help people understand what systematic reviews are, and how to do them. Most of the learning resources can be found at the 'Cochrane Training' webpage,[91] which also includes a link to the book Testing Treatments, which has been translated into many languages.[92] In addition, Cochrane has created a short video What are Systematic Reviews which explains in patently English language 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 (every bit of August 2020). In addition, an animated storyboard version was produced and all the video resources were released in multiple versions under Creative Commons for others to use and suit.[95] [96] [97] [98] The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) provides free learning resources to support people to appraise inquiry critically, including a checklist which contains x questions to 'help you make sense of a systematic review'.[99] [100]

Social, behavioural and educational [edit]

In 1959, social scientist and social work educator Barbara Wootton published one of the first gimmicky systematic reviews of literature on anti-social behavior as part of her work, Social Scientific discipline and Social Pathology.[101] [102]

Several organisations utilise systematic reviews in social, behavioural, and educational areas of evidence-based policy, including the National Institute for Wellness and Intendance Excellence (Dainty, UK), Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE, United kingdom), the Bureau for Healthcare Inquiry and Quality (AHRQ, U.s.a.), the Earth Health Organization, the International Initiative for Bear upon Evaluation (3ie), the Joanna Briggs Found and the Campbell Collaboration. The quasi-standard for systematic review in the social sciences is based on the procedures proposed by the Campbell Collaboration, which is one of several groups promoting bear witness-based policy in the social sciences. The Campbell Collaboration: 'helps people make well-informed decisions past 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 countdown meeting in Philadelphia, USA, attracting 85 participants from xiii countries.[104]

Business concern 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 concern enquiry. Some attempts to transfer the procedures from medicine to business research have been made,[105] including a step-by-step arroyo,[106] and developing a standard process for conducting systematic literature reviews in business and economic science. The Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Grouping (C-CEMG) works to improve the inclusion of economical evidence into Cochrane and Campbell systematic reviews of interventions, to enhance the usefulness of review findings every bit a component for controlling.[107] Such economic evidence is crucial for wellness technology cess processes.

International evolution enquiry [edit]

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

Environment [edit]

The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) works to achieve a sustainable global surroundings and the conservation of biodiversity. The CEE has a journal titled Environmental Evidence which publishes systematic reviews, review protocols and systematic maps on impacts of human being activity 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 offset full frameworks for carry of systematic reviews of environmental health evidence were only published in 2014 by the Us National Toxicology Program'south Role of Health Assessment and Translation[110] and the Navigation Guide at the University of California San Francisco's Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment.[111] Uptake has since been rapid, with the estimated number of systematic reviews in the field doubling since 2016 and the outset consensus recommendations on best practice, as a precursor to a more than general standard, existence published in 2020.[112]

Review tools [edit]

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

  • DistillerSR: a proprietary, paid spider web application
  • Swift Agile Screener: a proprietary, paid web application
  • Covidence: a proprietary, paid web application and Cochrane engineering science platform.
  • Rayyan: a proprietary, free of charge web application
  • Sysrev: a proprietary, freemium web application

Limitations [edit]

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

Out-dated or risk of bias [edit]

While systematic reviews are regarded equally 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 exist improved past a universally agreed upon set of standards and guidelines.[114] A further study by the same group found that of 100 systematic reviews monitored, 7% needed updating at the fourth dimension of publication, another 4% within a year, and another 11% within 2 years; this figure was higher in rapidly changing fields of medicine, peculiarly cardiovascular medicine.[115] A 2003 study suggested that extending searches beyond major databases, possibly into grey literature, would increment the effectiveness of reviews.[116]

Some authors have highlighted problems with systematic reviews, specially those conducted past Cochrane, noting that published reviews are oft biased, out of appointment and excessively long.[117] Cochrane reviews have been criticized as not beingness sufficiently disquisitional in the selection of trials and including besides many of depression quality. They proposed several solutions, including limiting studies in meta-analyses and reviews to registered clinical trials, requiring that original data be fabricated 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.

DG Altman, 1994 [118]

Methodological limitations of meta-analysis have also been noted.[119] Another concern is that the methods used to behave a systematic review are sometimes changed one time researchers run across the available trials they are going to include.[120] Some website have described retractions of systematic reviews and published reports of studies included in published systematic reviews.[121] [122] [123] Eligibility criteria must be justifiable and not arbitrary (for example, the appointment range searched) as this may impact the perceived quality of the review.[124] [125]

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

The 'AllTrials' campaign highlights that around one-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, as it is only possible to synthesize data of published studies. In addition, 'positive' trials were twice as likely to be published every bit those with 'negative' results.[127] At present, it is legal for for-profit companies to acquit clinical trials and not publish the results.[128] For instance, in the past x years viii.7 million patients have taken part in trials that have non 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 contempo systematic review of industry sponsorship and research outcomes concluded that 'sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more than 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 dilate the effect, although information technology is of import to annotation that the flaw is in the reporting of inquiry generally, non in the systematic review method.

Poor compliance with review reporting guidelines [edit]

The rapid growth of systematic reviews in recent years has been accompanied by the attendant issue of poor compliance with guidelines, particularly in areas such as declaration of registered written report protocols, funding source declaration, risk of bias information, bug resulting from data abstraction, and description of clear 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 improve the quality, reporting, and reproducibility of systematic review search strategies.[141] [142] Furthermore, tools and checklists for peer-reviewing search strategies have been created, such as the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) guidelines.[143]

A 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 take been designed. The 2 about pop measurement instruments and scoring tools for systematic review quality assessment are AMSTAR two (a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews)[144] [145] [146] [147] and ROBIS (Adventure Of Bias In Systematic reviews); however, these are not advisable for all systematic review types.[148]

Virtually this article [edit]

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

Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT) report [edit]

A STARDIT report about this article tin can exist found here:

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

Encounter also [edit]

  • Critical appraisement
  • Further enquiry 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 Nov 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): 147–50. doi:x.1093/pubmed/fdr015. PMID 21345890.
  3. ^ "What is EBM?". Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. 2009-11-xx. Archived from the original on 2011-04-06. Retrieved 2011-06-17 .
  4. ^ Ader HJ, Mellenbergh GJ, Hand DJ (2008). "Methodological quality". Advising on Inquiry Methods: A consultant'southward companion. Johannes van Kessel Publishing. ISBN978-90-79418-02-2.
  5. ^ Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd I (2014). "On the utilise of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies". Environmental Science & Policy. 42: 67–77. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.05.010.
  6. ^ Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health intendance (PDF). York: Academy of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2008. ISBN978-1-900640-47-3 . Retrieved 17 June 2011.
  7. ^ Petticrew M, Roberts H (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences (PDF). Wiley Blackwell. ISBN978-i-4051-2110-1. 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 assay of 14 review types and associated methodologies". Health Data & Libraries Journal. 26 (2): 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. PMID 19490148.
  9. ^ Bearman M, Dawson P (March 2013). "Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education". Medical Education. 47 (3): 252–sixty. doi:10.1111/medu.12092. PMID 23398011. S2CID 11042748.
  10. ^ Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, eds. (2019-09-twenty). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. grooming.cochrane.org. version vi.1. pp. section iv.6. Retrieved 2020-09-xiv .
  11. ^ Siemieniuk R, Guyatt G. "What is GRADE?". BMJ All-time Do . Retrieved 2020-08-26 .
  12. ^ Adèr HJ (2008). Advising on Research Methods: A Consultant's Companion. Johannes van Kessel Publishing. ISBN978-90-79418-01-v.
  13. ^ Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt Thousand, Oxman A, eds. (2013). GRADE Handbook . Retrieved 2020-08-26 .
  14. ^ a b Flemming 1000, Berth A, Hannes K, Cargo Thousand, Noyes J (May 2018). "Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-newspaper vi: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation testify 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 Grouping guidance series-paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation prove inside intervention effectiveness reviews" (PDF). Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 97: 70–78. doi:x.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.029. PMID 29242095.
  16. ^ "EPPI-Centre Home". eppi.ioe.air conditioning.united kingdom . Retrieved 2020-06-29 .
  17. ^ a b Berth 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 wellness engineering science assessments of complex interventions. p. 32. OCLC 944453327.
  18. ^ a b "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement". www.equator-network.org . Retrieved 2020-06-29 .
  19. ^ Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp Chiliad, Buckingham J, Pawson R (May 2013). "RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews". Journal of Advanced Nursing. 69 (5): 987–1004. doi:x.1111/january.12092. PMC3558334. PMID 23356699.
  20. ^ Wong K, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R (May 2013). "RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses". Periodical of Advanced Nursing. 69 (five): 1005–22. doi:ten.1111/jan.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 Academy". library.cqu.edu.au. Archived from the original on 2020-09-16. Retrieved 2020-09-16 .
  24. ^ "Habitation". covidrapidreviews.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  25. ^ a b Peters Medico, 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–half dozen. doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050. PMID 26134548. S2CID 8860037.
  26. ^ Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK (September 2010). "Scoping studies: advancing the methodology". Implementation Scientific discipline. five (i): 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 50, et al. (December 2014). "Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting". Periodical 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. vii: 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 Dr., Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB (September 2015). "Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews". International Periodical of Bear witness-Based Healthcare. xiii (three): 141–6. doi:x.1097/XEB.0000000000000050. PMID 26134548. S2CID 8860037.
  33. ^ Arksey H, O'Malley L (2005-02-01). "Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework" (PDF). International Journal of Social Research Methodology. eight (1): nineteen–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616. S2CID 12719181.
  34. ^ Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin West, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. (October 2018). "PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation" (PDF). Register of Internal Medicine. 169 (seven): 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 "Animated Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews?". cccrg.cochrane.org. Cochrane Consumers and Advice. Retrieved i June 2016.
  37. ^ "PRISMA". Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) . Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  38. ^ a b c Higgins JP, Dark-green Due south (eds.). "Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version five.i.0 (updated March 2011)". The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  39. ^ "5. Handsearching". preparation.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-09-14 .
  40. ^ Papaioannou D, Sutton A, Carroll C, Berth A, Wong R (June 2010). "Literature searching for social scientific discipline systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques". Wellness 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". Periodical of Clinical Epidemiology. 68 (6): 617–26. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025. PMID 25766056.
  42. ^ Koffel JB (2015-05-04). "Utilise of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-exclusive survey of contempo authors". PLOS I. 10 (5): e0125931. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1025931K. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125931. PMC4418838. PMID 25938454.
  43. ^ Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J (Oct 2016). "Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 104 (iv): 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 (9): 1001–vii. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.003. PMID 24841794.
  45. ^ Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH (September 2014). "Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review manufactures". JAMA. 312 (10): 999–1000. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9263. PMID 25203078.
  46. ^ a b "Blithe Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews?". cccrg.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-11-24 .
  47. ^ Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Folio MJ, Welch VA, eds. (2019-09-20). "Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies". Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. training.cochrane.org. version 6.1. section 4.6. Retrieved 2020-09-14 .
  48. ^ Marshall C, Brereton P (2015-04-27). "Systematic review toolbox: a catalogue of tools to support systematic reviews". Proceedings of the 19th International Briefing on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. EASE '15. Nanjing, China: Association for Calculating Machinery: 1–6. doi:x.1145/2745802.2745824. ISBN978-1-4503-3350-4. S2CID 6679820.
  49. ^ "The divergence nosotros make". world wide web.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2019-03-08 .
  50. ^ Higgins JP, López-López JA, Becker BJ, Davies SR, Dawson S, Grimshaw JM, et al. (2019-01-01). "Synthesising quantitative show in systematic reviews of complex health interventions". BMJ Global Health. 4 (Suppl 1): e000858. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000858. PMC6350707. PMID 30775014.
  51. ^ "Class working group". www.gradeworkinggroup.org . Retrieved 2019-03-08 .
  52. ^ "Form CERQual". world wide web.cerqual.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  53. ^ Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E (July 2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. 3 (1): 74. doi:ten.1186/2046-4053-3-74. PMC4100748. PMID 25005128.
  54. ^ Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, Thomas J, Higgins JP, Mavergames C, Gruen RL (Feb 2014). "Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap". PLOS Medicine. 11 (2): e1001603. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603. PMC3928029. PMID 24558353.
  55. ^ Reddy SM, Patel S, Weyrich 1000, Fenton J, Viswanathan Thousand (October 2020). "Comparison of a traditional systematic review approach with review-of-reviews and semi-automation equally strategies to update the prove". Systematic Reviews. 9 (one): 243. doi:ten.1186/s13643-020-01450-2. PMC7574591. PMID 33076975.
  56. ^ Tsafnat 1000, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera Due east (July 2014). "Systematic review automation technologies". Systematic Reviews. three (1): 74. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-74. PMC4100748. PMID 25005128.
  57. ^ British Medical Journal Publishing Grouping (1904-11-05). "Report on Certain Enteric Fever Inoculation Statistics". BMJ. ii (2288): 1243–1246. doi:ten.1136/bmj.2.2288.1243. ISSN 0007-1447. PMC2355479. PMID 20761760. S2CID 30331745.
  58. ^ a b "1.1.ii A cursory history of Cochrane". customs.cochrane.org. Archived from the original on 2019-01-17. Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  59. ^ Drinking glass GV, Smith ML, et al. (Far West Lab. for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco, CA) (1978). Meta-Assay of Research on the Relationship of Class-Size and Accomplishment. The Form Size and Instruction Project. Washington, D.C.]: Distributed past ERIC Clearinghouse.
  60. ^ "History of Systematic Reviews". Bear witness for Policy and Exercise Information and Co-ordinating Eye (EPPI-Centre) . Retrieved 2019-02-24 .
  61. ^ Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC (July 1992). "Cumulative meta-assay of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction". The New England Journal of Medicine. 327 (4): 248–54. doi:10.1056/NEJM199207233270406. PMID 1614465.
  62. ^ Cochrane AL (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on wellness services (PDF). [London]: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust. ISBN0-900574-17-8. OCLC 741462. Archived from the original on 2020-09-16.
  63. ^ Shah HM, Chung KC (September 2009). "Archie Cochrane and his vision for testify-based medicine". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 124 (iii): 982–8. doi:ten.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b03928. PMC2746659. PMID 19730323.
  64. ^ Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2011). Testing treatments : better inquiry for better healthcare (Second ed.). London: Pinter & Martin. ISBN978-one-905177-48-6. OCLC 778837501.
  65. ^ The Cochrane Library. 2015 impact cistron. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Retrieved 2016-07-20.
  66. ^ Review Manager (RevMan) [Estimator program]. Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
  67. ^ "Main page". Cochrane Library.
  68. ^ Silva V, Grande AJ, Carvalho AP, Martimbianco AL, Riera R (2015). "Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of report. Part 2". Sao Paulo Medical Journal. 133 (3): 206–17. doi:ten.1590/1516-3180.2013.8150015. PMID 25388685.
  69. ^ Silva Five, Grande AJ, Martimbianco AL, Riera R, Carvalho AP (2012). "Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom?". Sao Paulo Medical Journal. 130 (6): 398–404. doi:10.1590/S1516-31802012000600007. PMID 23338737.
  70. ^ Freeman SC, Kerby CR, Patel A, Cooper NJ, Quinn T, Sutton AJ (2019). "Development of an interactive web-based tool to carry and interrogate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accurateness studies: MetaDTA". BMC Medical Inquiry Methodology. nineteen (ane): 81. doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0724-x. PMC6471890. PMID 30999861.
  71. ^ Banno Grand, Tsujimoto Y, Luo Y, Miyakoshi C, Kataoka Y (2021). "CAST-HSROC: A Web Awarding for Computing the Summary Points of Diagnostic Test Accuracy From the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic Model". Cureus. xiii (two): 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. three (1): 74. doi:x.1186/2046-4053-3-74. PMC4100748. PMID 25005128.
  74. ^ Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, Thomas J, Higgins JP, Mavergames C, Gruen RL (Feb 2014). "Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-do gap". PLOS Medicine. 11 (two): e1001603. doi:ten.1371/periodical.pmed.1001603. PMC3928029. PMID 24558353.
  75. ^ "Cochrane'south work on Rapid Reviews in response to COVID-nineteen". www.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  76. ^ Norris SL, Rehfuess EA, Smith H, Tunçalp Ö, Grimshaw JM, Ford NP, Portela A (2019-01-01). "Complex health interventions in complex systems: improving the process and methods for bear witness-informed wellness decisions". BMJ Global Health. iv (Suppl 1): e000963. doi:ten.1136/bmjgh-2018-000963. PMC6350736. PMID 30775018.
  77. ^ "Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR)". Cochrane. Retrieved 6 October 2014.
  78. ^ "Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (Central)". Cochrane Library . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  79. ^ "Revisiones Cochrane". Cochrane Library (in Spanish). 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 M (January 2019). "Has Cochrane lost its way?". BMJ. 364: k5302. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5302. PMID 30606713. S2CID 58623482.
  83. ^ "Cochrane crowd". oversupply.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2019-02-14 .
  84. ^
  85. ^
  86. ^ [Pre-print] Nunn J, Shafee T, Chang S, Stephens R, Elliott J, Oliver South, John D, Smith M, Orr Northward. "Standardised Data on Initiatives - STARDIT: Blastoff Version". osf.io. doi:10.31219/osf.io/5q47h. S2CID 242815262. Retrieved 2020-08-20 .
  87. ^ Newman M (2019-01-03). "Has Cochrane lost its mode?". BMJ. 364: k5302. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5302. PMID 30606713. S2CID 58623482.
  88. ^ Synnot AJ, Tong A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan M, et al. (April 2019). "Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in 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. PMC6489310. PMID 31036016.
  89. ^ Synnot A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan M, Horvat Fifty, et al. (May 2018). "Research priorities in wellness communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders". BMJ Open. 8 (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-linguistic communication costless online animated learning resource. Abstracts of the 24th Cochrane Colloquium; 23–27 October 2016, Seoul, Republic of korea. Wiley. 2016-10-23. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD201602.
  95. ^ "Creating a successful online animation resource: the 'what are systematic reviews?' video". Cochrane Community. 2019-06-25. Archived from the original on 2019-06-25. Retrieved 2019-06-25 .
  96. ^ "Animated Storyboard: What Are Systematic Reviews?". cccrg.cochrane.org. Cochrane Consumers and Communication. Retrieved ane June 2016.
  97. ^ Nunn J, Synnot A, Mcdonald S, Allen K, Hill Due south (2015). "Building partnerships with the public past learning about Cochrane testify". 23rd Cochrane Colloquium 2015. doi:ten.13140/RG.2.1.2182.1922. Archived from the original on 2015-11-09.
  98. ^ Nunn J, Colina S. "What are systematic reviews?". Retrieved 2020-08-20 .
  99. ^ "CASP Checklists". Critical Appraisal Skills Programme . Retrieved 2020-08-21 .
  100. ^ "CASP Systematic Review Checklist" (PDF). casp-britain.net. 2020-08-21. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-08-21. Retrieved 2020-08-21 .
  101. ^ Gough, David; Oliver, Sandy; Thomas, James (2017). An Introduction to Systematic Reviews (2nd ed.). London: Sage. p. XIII.
  102. ^ Oakley, Ann (2011). A disquisitional woman : Barbara Wootton, social science and public policy in the twentieth century. London: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN9781849664707.
  103. ^ "About Usa". 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-xv . {{cite 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 (three): 207–222. CiteSeerX10.1.i.622.895. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
  106. ^ Durach CF, Kembro J, Wieland A (2017). "A New Paradigm for Systematic Literature Reviews in Supply Chain Management". Journal of Supply Chain Management. 53 (four): 67–85. doi:10.1111/jscm.12145.
  107. ^ "About u.s.". methods.cochrane.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  108. ^ a b Hagen-Zanker J, Duvendack M, Mallett R, Slater R, Carpenter South, Tromme Grand (Jan 2012). "Making systematic reviews work for international development enquiry". Overseas Development Found.
  109. ^ "Environmental Prove: Reliable evidence, informed decisions, better surroundings". www.environmentalevidence.org . Retrieved 2020-07-01 .
  110. ^ Rooney, Andrew A.; Boyles, Abee L.; Wolfe, Mary S.; Bucher, John R.; Thayer, Kristina A. (2014). "Systematic Review and Evidence Integration for Literature-Based Environmental 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 Ecology Wellness Science into Improve Wellness Outcomes". Environmental Health Perspectives. 122 (10): 1007–1014. doi:10.1289/ehp.1307175. PMC4181919. PMID 24968373.
  112. ^ Whaley, Paul; Aiassa, Elisa; Beausoleil, Claire; Beronius, Anna; Bilotta, Gary; Boobis, Alan; De Vries, Rob; Hanberg, Annika; Hoffmann, Sebastian; Chase, Neil; Kwiatkowski, Carol F.; Lam, Juleen; Lipworth, Steven; Martin, Olwenn; Randall, Nicola; Rhomberg, Lorenz; Rooney, Andrew A.; Schünemann, Holger J.; Wikoff, Daniele; Wolffe, Taylor; Halsall, Crispin (2020). "Recommendations for the conduct of systematic reviews in toxicology and ecology health research (COSTER)". Environment International. 143: 105926. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105926. PMID 32653802. S2CID 220502683.
  113. ^ Van der Mierden South, Tsaioun K, Bleich A, Leenaars CH (2019). "Software tools for literature screening in systematic reviews in biomedical research". Altex. 36 (iii): 508–517. doi:ten.14573/altex.1902131. PMID 31113000.
  114. ^ Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco Air conditioning, Sampson Chiliad, Altman DG (March 2007). "Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews". PLOS Medicine. four (3): e78. doi:ten.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. PMC1831728. PMID 17388659.
  115. ^ Shojania KG, Sampson K, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette Southward, Moher D (August 2007). "How quickly do systematic reviews get out of date? A survival assay". Annals of Internal Medicine. 147 (4): 224–33. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179. PMID 17638714. S2CID 3988259.
  116. ^ Savoie I, Helmer D, Green CJ, Kazanjian A (2003). "Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search". International Journal of Technology Cess in Health Intendance. 19 (1): 168–78. doi:x.1017/S0266462303000163. PMID 12701949. S2CID 42494895.
  117. ^ 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.
  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 Due south (Nov 1994). "Meta-analysis/Shmeta-analysis". American Periodical of Epidemiology. 140 (ix): 771–eight. doi:x.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117324. PMID 7977286.
  120. ^ Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer Due south, Light-green S, Forbes A (October 2014). "Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015 (x): MR000035. doi:ten.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2. PMC8191366. PMID 25271098.
  121. ^ Roberts I. "Retraction Of Scientific Papers For Fraud Or Bias Is Just The Tip Of The Iceberg". IFL Science! . Retrieved 29 June 2015.
  122. ^ Ferguson C (2015-04-02). "Retraction and republication for Lancet Resp Med tracheostomy paper". Retraction Lookout . Retrieved 29 June 2015.
  123. ^ Ferguson C (2015-03-26). "BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer review". Retraction Sentry.
  124. ^ Flinders University Library. "Search Smart: Systematic Reviews: Methodology overview". flinders.libguides.com . Retrieved 2020-09-16 .
  125. ^ Pursell E, McCrae North (2020). How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review: a guide for healthcare researchers, practitioners and students. Springer Nature. ISBN978-3-030-49672-2. OCLC 1182880684.
  126. ^ "One-half of all clinical trials accept never reported results". AllTrials. 2015-08-20. Retrieved 2019-03-08 .
  127. ^ Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. (February 2010). "Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases". Health Engineering Assessment. xiv (8): 3, ix–xi, ane–193. doi:10.3310/hta14080. PMID 20181324.
  128. ^ a b Iacobucci Thou (November 2016). "Well-nigh half of all trials run by major sponsors in by decade are unpublished". BMJ. 355: i5955. doi:10.1136/bmj.i5955. PMID 27815253. S2CID 43604202.
  129. ^ Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero Fifty, et al. (Cochrane Methodology Review Group) (February 2017). "Industry sponsorship and inquiry outcome". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017 (2): MR000033. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3. PMC8132492. PMID 28207928.
  130. ^ Pidgeon TE, Wellstead G, Sagoo H, Jafree DJ, Fowler AJ, Agha RA (October 2016). "An assessment of the compliance of systematic review manufactures 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 G, Wellstead G, Fowler AJ, Agha RA, Orgill D (2016-03-01). "Compliance of Systematic Reviews in Plastic Surgery With the PRISMA Argument". JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery. 18 (2): 101–v. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2015.1726. PMID 26719993.
  132. ^ Akhigbe T, Zolnourian A, Bulters D (May 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews articles in brain arteriovenous malformation with PRISMA statement guidelines: Review of literature". Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 39: 45–48. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2017.02.016. PMID 28246008. S2CID 27738264.
  133. ^ Lee SY, Sagoo H, Farwana R, Whitehurst K, Fowler A, Agha R (December 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 17 (one): 178. doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0450-1. PMC5745614. PMID 29281981.
  134. ^ Eastward JY, Saldanha IJ, Canner J, Schmid CH, Le JT, Li T (May 2020). "Adjudication rather than experience of data abstraction matters more in reducing errors in abstracting data in systematic reviews". Research Synthesis Methods. 11 (three): 354–362. doi:ten.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-Touch on Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study". PLOS ONE. 11 (9): e0163309. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1163309K. doi:x.1371/journal.pone.0163309. PMC5036875. PMID 27669416.
  136. ^ Yoshii A, Plaut DA, McGraw KA, Anderson MJ, Wellik KE (January 2009). "Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 97 (1): 21–9. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.004. PMC2605027. PMID 19158999.
  137. ^ Toews LC (July 2017). "Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 105 (3): 233–239. doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.246. PMC5490700. PMID 28670210.
  138. ^ Mullins MM, DeLuca JB, Crepaz N, Lyles CM (June 2014). "Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible?". Research Synthesis Methods. 5 (2): 116–30. doi:10.1002/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. nine (1): 89–99. doi:ten.1002/jrsm.1275. PMID 29065246.
  140. ^ Golder Southward, Loke Y, McIntosh HM (May 2008). "Poor reporting and inadequate searches were credible in systematic reviews of agin effects". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61 (5): 440–8. doi:ten.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005. PMID 18394536.
  141. ^ Rethlefsen M, Ayala AP, Kirtley Southward, Koffel J, Waffenschmidt Due south (2019-03-04). "PRISMA-S PRISMA Search Reporting Extension". doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/YGN9W.
  142. ^ [Pre-print] Rethlefsen M, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, 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 M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster Five, Lefebvre C (July 2016). "Printing Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 75: 40–vi. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021. PMID 27005575.
  144. ^ Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku Thousand, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. (September 2017). "AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both". BMJ. 358: j4008. doi:ten.1136/bmj.j4008. PMC5833365. PMID 28935701.
  145. ^ Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. (Feb 2007). "Evolution of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to appraise the methodological quality of systematic reviews". BMC Medical Research Methodology. vii (1): 10. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10. PMC1810543. PMID 17302989.
  146. ^ Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson Eastward, Grimshaw J, et al. (October 2009). "AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 62 (10): 1013–20. doi:ten.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009. PMID 19230606.
  147. ^ Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells Thousand, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. (September 2017). "AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisement tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both". BMJ. 358: j4008. doi:ten.1136/bmj.j4008. PMC5833365. PMID 28935701.
  148. ^ Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al. (Jan 2016). "ROBIS: A new tool to assess hazard of bias in systematic reviews was developed". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 69: 225–34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005. PMC4687950. PMID 26092286.
  • This commodity was submitted to WikiJournal of Medicine for external bookish peer review in 2019 (reviewer reports). The updated content was reintegrated into the Wikipedia folio under a CC-BY-SA-three.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 (ane): 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 well-nigh the review procedure
  • MeSH: Review [Publication Type] - 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 Advice Group
  • Sysrev - a complimentary platform with open admission systematic reviews.

johnsonouteriesself02.blogspot.com

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

0 Response to "Which of the Following Is Not True About Systemic Review"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel