Citizendia
Your Ad Here

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. Evidence-based medicine (EBM aims to apply Evidence gained from the Scientific method to certain parts of medical practice 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. Health care is the prevention treatment and management of illness and the preservation of mental health through the services offered by the medical, Nursing

Contents

Characteristics

A systematic review is a summary of research (often in the biomedical or healthcare context) that uses explicit methods to perform a thorough literature search and critical appraisal of individual studies to identify the valid and applicable evidence. Biomedical research (or experimental medicine) in general simply known as medical research, is the Basic research or Applied research conducted 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. In Statistics, a meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses A systematic review uses an objective and transparent approach for research synthesis, with the aim of minimising bias. 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. Quantitative research is the systematic scientific investigation of Quantitative properties and Phenomena and their relationships The objective of quantitative In Statistics, a meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses Qualitative research is a field of inquiry that crosscuts disciplines and subject matters. Recent developments include realist reviews and the meta-narrative approach. [1]

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. For a broader class of publications which include scientific journals see Academic journal. The Cochrane Collaboration is a group of over 11500 volunteers in more than 90 countries who apply a rigorous systematic process to review the effects of interventions tested in biomedical 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 Library is a collection of databases in medicine and other healthcare specialties provided by the Cochrane Collaboration and other organisations A Clinical Trial Protocol is a document that describes the objective(s design methodology statistical considerations and organization of a Clinical trial.

The Cochrane Group provides a handbook for systematic reviewers of interventions, where they suggest that each systematic review should contain the following main sections:

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, 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]

See also

References

  1. ^ Diffusion of Innovations in Health Service Organisations: a systematic literature review
  2. ^ Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007). In Statistics, a meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses "Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews". PLoS Med. 4 (3): e78. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. A digital object identifier ( DOI) is a permanent identifier given to an Electronic document. PMID 17388659.  
  3. ^ a b 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.  

External links

© 2009 citizendia.org; parts available under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License, from http://en.wikipedia.org
 Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic