Systematic review: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Robert Badgett (Added history section) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
{{TOC|right}} | |||
A '''systematic review''' is a literature review focused on a single question which tries to identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high quality research evidence relevant to that question. Systematic reviews are generally regarded as the highest level of medical evidence by [[evidence-based medicine]] professionals. An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is becoming mandatory for all professionals involved in the delivery of [[health care]]. | A '''systematic review''' is a literature review focused on a single question which tries to identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high quality research evidence relevant to that question. Systematic reviews are generally regarded as the highest level of medical evidence by [[evidence-based medicine]] professionals. An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is becoming mandatory for all professionals involved in the delivery of [[health care]]. | ||
| Line 6: | Line 8: | ||
While many systematic reviews are based on an explicit [[quantitative research|quantitative]] [[meta-analysis]] of available data, there are also [[qualitative research|qualitative]] reviews which nonetheless adhere to the standards for gathering, analyzing and reporting evidence. | While many systematic reviews are based on an explicit [[quantitative research|quantitative]] [[meta-analysis]] of available data, there are also [[qualitative research|qualitative]] reviews which nonetheless adhere to the standards for gathering, analyzing and reporting evidence. | ||
==Cochrane collaboration== | ==Collaborations== | ||
===Campbell collaboration=== | |||
The [http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/ Campbell Collaboration] produces systematic reviews for the mission of "The Campbell Collaboration (C2) helps people make well-informed decisions by preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews in education, crime and justice, and social welfare." | |||
===Cochrane collaboration=== | |||
{{main|Cochrane Collaboration}} | |||
Many healthcare [[scientific journal|journals]] now publish systematic reviews, but the best-known source is the [[Cochrane Collaboration]], a group of over 6,000 specialists in health care who systematically review randomised trials of the effects of treatments and, when appropriate, the results of other research. Cochrane reviews are published in the ''Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews'' section of the [[Cochrane Library]], which to date (February 2007) contains 2,893 complete reviews and 1,646 [[Clinical protocol|protocols]]. | Many healthcare [[scientific journal|journals]] now publish systematic reviews, but the best-known source is the [[Cochrane Collaboration]], a group of over 6,000 specialists in health care who systematically review randomised trials of the effects of treatments and, when appropriate, the results of other research. Cochrane reviews are published in the ''Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews'' section of the [[Cochrane Library]], which to date (February 2007) contains 2,893 complete reviews and 1,646 [[Clinical protocol|protocols]]. | ||
The Cochrane Group provides a | The Cochrane Group provides a handbook for systematic reviewers of interventions]<ref name="titleCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5">{{cite web |url=http://www.cochrane.dk/cochrane/handbook/hbook.htm |title=Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 |accessdate=2008-03-24 |author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=}}</ref>, where they suggest that each systematic review should contain the following main sections: | ||
* Background | * Background | ||
* Objectives | * Objectives | ||
| Line 16: | Line 23: | ||
* Conclusion and discussion | * Conclusion and discussion | ||
There are seven steps for preparing and maintaining a systematic review | ==Steps in conducting a systematic review== | ||
There are seven steps for preparing and maintaining a systematic review:<ref name="titleCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5">{{cite web |url=http://www.cochrane.dk/cochrane/handbook/hbook.htm |title=Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 |accessdate=2008-03-24 |author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=}}</ref> | |||
# Formulating a problem | # Formulating a problem | ||
# Locating and selecting studies | # Locating and selecting studies. Deluca has published a search strategy.<ref name="titleDeLuca">{{cite web |url=http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/855 |title=Developing a Comprehensive Search Strategy for Evidence Based Systematic Reviews |accessdate=2008-03-24 |author=DeLuca JB et al|authorlink= |coauthors= |date=2008 |format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=}}</ref> | ||
# Critical appraisal of studies | # Critical appraisal of studies | ||
# Collecting data | # Collecting data | ||
| Line 26: | Line 34: | ||
==Strengths and weaknesses== | ==Strengths and weaknesses== | ||
While systematic reviews are regarded as the strongest form of medical evidence, a review of 300 studies found that not all systematic reviews were equally reliable, and that their reporting could be improved by a universally agreed upon set of standards and guidelines.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG |title=Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews |journal=PLoS Med. |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=e78 |year=2007 |pmid=17388659 |doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078}}</ref> | While systematic reviews are regarded as the strongest form of medical evidence and systematic reviews are cited more often than narrative reviews<ref name="pmid14633274">{{cite journal |author=Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB |title=Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts |journal=BMC Med |volume=1 |issue= |pages=2 |year=2003 |pmid=14633274 |doi=10.1186/1741-7015-1-2}}</ref>, a review of 300 studies found that not all systematic reviews were equally reliable, and that their reporting could be improved by a universally agreed upon set of standards and guidelines.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG |title=Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews |journal=PLoS Med. |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=e78 |year=2007 |pmid=17388659 |doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078}}</ref> | ||
The Oxman scale has been developed to assess the quality of systematic reviews.<ref name="pmid1834807">{{cite journal |author=Oxman AD, Guyatt GH |title=Validation of an index of the quality of review articles |journal=J Clin Epidemiol |volume=44 |issue=11 |pages=1271–8 |year=1991 |pmid=1834807 |doi= |url=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0895-4356(91)90160-B |issn=}}</ref> The scale contains ten items (see decription of items at http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/147/7/492/T2). | |||
A further study by the same group found that of 100 guidelines reviewed, 4% required updating within a year, and 11% after 2 years; this figure was higher in rapidly-changing fields of medicine, especially cardiovascular medicine.<ref name="pmid17638714">{{cite journal |author=Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D |title=How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis |journal=Ann. Intern. Med. |volume=147 |issue=4 |pages=224-33 |year=2007 |pmid=17638714 |doi=}}</ref> 7% of systematic reviews needed updating at the time of publication. <ref name="pmid17638714"/> | A further study by the same group found that of 100 guidelines reviewed, 4% required updating within a year, and 11% after 2 years; this figure was higher in rapidly-changing fields of medicine, especially cardiovascular medicine.<ref name="pmid17638714">{{cite journal |author=Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D |title=How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis |journal=Ann. Intern. Med. |volume=147 |issue=4 |pages=224-33 |year=2007 |pmid=17638714 |doi=}}</ref> 7% of systematic reviews needed updating at the time of publication. <ref name="pmid17638714"/> | ||
Practicing physicians tend to rate systematic reviews as "higher for relevance to practice than articles with original evidence and lower for useful new information".<ref name="pmid16622142">{{cite journal |author=Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, ''et al'' |title=Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners |journal=JAMA |volume=295 |issue=15 |pages=1801–8 |year=2006 |pmid=16622142 |doi=10.1001/jama.295.15.1801}}</ref> | |||
==History== | ==History== | ||
The term, meta-analysis was introduced in 1976 by Glass. <ref name=glass1976">Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_epq=Primary%2C+Secondary%2C+and+Meta-Analysis+of+Research&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=Glass&as_ylo=1976&as_allsubj=all Google scholar]</ref> | The term, [[meta-analysis]] was introduced in 1976 by Glass. <ref name=glass1976">Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_epq=Primary%2C+Secondary%2C+and+Meta-Analysis+of+Research&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=Glass&as_ylo=1976&as_allsubj=all Google scholar]</ref> | ||
The logo for the [[Cochrane | The logo for the [[Cochrane Collaboration]] is the scattergram that summarizes the result of an early meta-analysis of corticosteroids to prevent to prevent fetal lung disease.<ref name="isbn0192615580 ">{{cite book |author=Keirse, Marc J. N. C.; Chalmers, Iain; Enkin, Murray |title=Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford [Oxfordshire] |year=1989 |pages= |isbn=0192615580 |oclc= |doi=}}</ref><ref name="pmid2137711">{{cite journal |author=Crowley P, Chalmers I, Keirse MJ |title=The effects of corticosteroid administration before preterm delivery: an overview of the evidence from controlled trials |journal=British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology |volume=97 |issue=1 |pages=11–25 |year=1990 |pmid=2137711 |doi=}}</ref> This meta-analysis contributed to the realization that many patients were not receiving a treatment whose benefit had already been established.<ref name="pmid8019284">{{cite journal |author=Haines A, Jones R |title=Implementing findings of research |journal=BMJ |volume=308 |issue=6942 |pages=1488–92 |year=1994 |pmid=8019284 |doi=}}</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
==See also== | |||
* [[Meta-analysis]] | |||
== External links == | == External links == | ||
| Line 42: | Line 57: | ||
* [http://www.cochrane.org/ Cochrane Collaboration] | * [http://www.cochrane.org/ Cochrane Collaboration] | ||
[[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]] | |||
[[Category: | |||
Latest revision as of 11:00, 24 October 2024
A systematic review is a literature review focused on a single question which tries to identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high quality research evidence relevant to that question. Systematic reviews are generally regarded as the highest level of medical evidence by evidence-based medicine professionals. An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is becoming mandatory for all professionals involved in the delivery of health care.
Characteristics
A systematic review is a summary of healthcare research that uses explicit methods to perform a thorough literature search and critical appraisal of individual studies to identify the valid and applicable evidence. It often, but not always, uses appropriate techniques (meta-analysis) to combine these valid studies, or at least uses grading of the levels of evidence depending on the methodology used.
While many systematic reviews are based on an explicit quantitative meta-analysis of available data, there are also qualitative reviews which nonetheless adhere to the standards for gathering, analyzing and reporting evidence.
Collaborations
Campbell collaboration
The Campbell Collaboration produces systematic reviews for the mission of "The Campbell Collaboration (C2) helps people make well-informed decisions by preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews in education, crime and justice, and social welfare."
Cochrane collaboration
Many healthcare journals now publish systematic reviews, but the best-known source is the Cochrane Collaboration, a group of over 6,000 specialists in health care who systematically review randomised trials of the effects of treatments and, when appropriate, the results of other research. Cochrane reviews are published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews section of the Cochrane Library, which to date (February 2007) contains 2,893 complete reviews and 1,646 protocols.
The Cochrane Group provides a handbook for systematic reviewers of interventions][1], where they suggest that each systematic review should contain the following main sections:
- Background
- Objectives
- Methods of the review
- Results
- Conclusion and discussion
Steps in conducting a systematic review
There are seven steps for preparing and maintaining a systematic review:[1]
- Formulating a problem
- Locating and selecting studies. Deluca has published a search strategy.[2]
- Critical appraisal of studies
- Collecting data
- Analyzing and presenting results
- Interpreting results
- Improving and updating reviews
Strengths and weaknesses
While systematic reviews are regarded as the strongest form of medical evidence and systematic reviews are cited more often than narrative reviews[3], a review of 300 studies found that not all systematic reviews were equally reliable, and that their reporting could be improved by a universally agreed upon set of standards and guidelines.[4]
The Oxman scale has been developed to assess the quality of systematic reviews.[5] The scale contains ten items (see decription of items at http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/147/7/492/T2).
A further study by the same group found that of 100 guidelines reviewed, 4% required updating within a year, and 11% after 2 years; this figure was higher in rapidly-changing fields of medicine, especially cardiovascular medicine.[6] 7% of systematic reviews needed updating at the time of publication. [6]
Practicing physicians tend to rate systematic reviews as "higher for relevance to practice than articles with original evidence and lower for useful new information".[7]
History
The term, meta-analysis was introduced in 1976 by Glass. [8]
The logo for the Cochrane Collaboration is the scattergram that summarizes the result of an early meta-analysis of corticosteroids to prevent to prevent fetal lung disease.[9][10] This meta-analysis contributed to the realization that many patients were not receiving a treatment whose benefit had already been established.[11]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5. Retrieved on 2008-03-24.
- ↑ DeLuca JB et al (2008). Developing a Comprehensive Search Strategy for Evidence Based Systematic Reviews. Retrieved on 2008-03-24.
- ↑ Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB (2003). "Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts". BMC Med 1: 2. DOI:10.1186/1741-7015-1-2. PMID 14633274. Research Blogging.
- ↑ Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007). "Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews". PLoS Med. 4 (3): e78. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. PMID 17388659. Research Blogging.
- ↑ Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1991). "Validation of an index of the quality of review articles". J Clin Epidemiol 44 (11): 1271–8. PMID 1834807. [e]
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D (2007). "How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis". Ann. Intern. Med. 147 (4): 224-33. PMID 17638714. [e]
- ↑ Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, et al (2006). "Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners". JAMA 295 (15): 1801–8. DOI:10.1001/jama.295.15.1801. PMID 16622142. Research Blogging.
- ↑ Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8. Google scholar
- ↑ Keirse, Marc J. N. C.; Chalmers, Iain; Enkin, Murray (1989). Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192615580.
- ↑ Crowley P, Chalmers I, Keirse MJ (1990). "The effects of corticosteroid administration before preterm delivery: an overview of the evidence from controlled trials". British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 97 (1): 11–25. PMID 2137711. [e]
- ↑ Haines A, Jones R (1994). "Implementing findings of research". BMJ 308 (6942): 1488–92. PMID 8019284. [e]
See also
External links
- University of York (March 2001), Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness:CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD Report 4 (2nd edition). Retrieved 2007-06-27
- Cochrane Collaboration