Systematic review: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Robert Badgett
(→‎History: Added suppporting reference)
imported>Robert Badgett
Line 31: Line 31:


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|author=Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D |title=How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date?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|author=Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D |title=How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date?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==

Revision as of 17:11, 9 December 2007

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Systematic_review&printable=yes
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

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.

Cochrane collaboration

For more information, see: 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, where they suggest that each systematic review should contain the following main sections:

  • Background
  • Objectives
  • Methods of the review
  • Results
  • Conclusion and discussion

There are seven steps for preparing and maintaining a systematic review, as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook:

  1. Formulating a problem
  2. Locating and selecting studies
  3. Critical appraisal of studies
  4. Collecting data
  5. Analyzing and presenting results
  6. Interpreting results
  7. 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[1], 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.[2]

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.[3] 7% of systematic reviews needed updating at the time of publication. [3]

Practicing physicians tend to rate systematic reviews as "higher for relevance to practice than articles with original evidence and lower for useful new information".[4]

History

The term, meta-analysis was introduced in 1976 by Glass. [5]

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.[6][7] This meta-analysis contributed to the realization that many patients were not receiving a treatment whose benefit had already been established.[8]

References

  1. ↑ 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.
  2. ↑ 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.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 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]
  4. ↑ 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.
  5. ↑ Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8. Google scholar
  6. ↑ Keirse, Marc J. N. C.; Chalmers, Iain; Enkin, Murray (1989). Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192615580. 
  7. ↑ 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]
  8. ↑ Haines A, Jones R (1994). "Implementing findings of research". BMJ 308 (6942): 1488–92. PMID 8019284. [e]

External links

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Systematic_review&oldid=306703"