Library

Showing posts with label systematic reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label systematic reviews. Show all posts

19 April 2017

Systematic Review Library Guide


A new guide has been devised to help researchers conduct a systematic review, says Subject Librarian Cassandra Freeman.


If you are part of a research team working on a systematic review for publication or undertaking a review for assessment purposes, the Library has developed a useful online resource to help guide you through the process.

What is a Systematic Review?



Systematic reviews are more commonly associated with medicine and evidence based research to inform clinical decisions and treatments. However, critical reviews or the systematic synthesis of research findings were already being published in disciplines such as the social sciences in the early 1970s in order to provide evidence to inform service and policy decisions. [1]

It was in 1972 that Archie Cochrane, a British epidemiologist, wrote about the need for more clinicians and medical practitioners to use randomised controlled trial findings to inform them about the best drug treatments and therapies for patients. [2]

In 1979, he went on to write that there was a significant lack of critical summaries of research evidence in the medical profession. Cochrane argued it was essential for clinicians to start periodically critically reviewing a range of randomised controlled trials to really ensure best practice in health care decisions. [3] This is how critical reviews evolved in medicine into the systematic reviews that are published today.
Systematic Review Guide

A systematic review implements a standardised approach to gathering evidence relating to a specific research question. The evidence is taken from a systematic search of an exhaustive set of studies, and the data analysed in context to assess the strength of the findings. The quality of systematic reviews varies, although published Cochrane Reviews use rigorous scientific methods and are sometimes considered to be the ‘gold standard’. A systematic review does not necessarily have to adhere to all the Cochrane requirements if it is going to be published elsewhere. There are organisations other than Cochrane that have developed standards for systematic reviews. Consult the new systematic review library guide for more detailed information.

Systematic reviews have some unique features that make them differ from standard literature reviews. Below are some requirements of published Cochrane systematic reviews.
  • Should have more than one author. This is effective in reducing potential author bias in selection of studies and data extraction, and to help detect any errors.
  • Can be replicated (and therefore verified) due to the comprehensive documentation of the search and selection methodologies used.
  • Poor quality studies are eliminated (via pre-defined exclusion criteria) even when there are few other studies available. This can provide clarity in areas previously thought to show opposing conclusions.
  • Where possible, an international perspective is taken and results considered in a broad context.
  • Must be updated every two years or include an explanation as to why this hasn’t happened.

Meta-analyses


Some systematic reviews will include a meta-analysis when assessing the effectiveness of a healthcare outcome. A meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the findings of relevant studies and analyses the resulting data set.   For more information see the Cochrane Handbook.

Rise of systematic reviews


There has been a proliferation of systematic reviews being published and the number continues to rise. According to a recent study, over a 10 year period from 2004 to 2014 the number of indexed systematic reviews in Medline database went from 2,500 to 8,000. The authors of the study suggest that the reasons for this may vary, including funder requirements for systematic reviews for research proposals and also the increase and availability of journals accepting systematic reviews. [4]

In order to ensure the quality of a systematic review, it is important to seek professional advice, particularly in the selection of appropriate library resources to search and methods of searching. The new library guide has been developed to address the needs of both students and researchers, and can be used at any step in the process of a systematic review for publication or as part of an assessment task. It provides valuable information to guide you whether you are new to conducting this type of review, but also if you want to improve and further develop your knowledge of systematic review requirements.

References

  1. Strech, D., & Sofaer, N. (2012). How to write a systematic review of reasons. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(2), 121-126. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100096
  2. Cochrane, A. L. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency : random reflections on health services. London]: London : Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.
  3. Cochrane, A. L. (1979). 1931-1971: A critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In G. Teeling- Smith & N. Wells (Eds.).Medicines for the year 2000 (pp. 1-11). London: Office of Health Economics.
  4. Page, M. J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A. C., . . . Sarkis-Onofre, R. (2016). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS medicine, 13(5). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028




Read More

2 July 2015

Have you read any Systematic Reviews lately?


We all want to inform our decision making with evidence, but filtering out the pseudoscience can be quite a feat. Especially since it is so often easily digestible and fits nicely with an existing point of view. What we need is something that will synthesise the evidence for us... By Penny Presta.


The reporting of scientific advancements is spread out across a range of publications and platforms, some of which are not freely available. In addition, the amount of research published continues to rise and there may be significant differences in the quality of evidence due to poor study design, inherent biases or other limitations.

Systematic reviews
Systematic reviews were devised in 1979 by Archie Cochrane  in an attempt to overcome such challenges by providing ‘critical summaries’ for the medical profession [1]. A systematic review implements a standardised approach to gathering evidence relating to a specific research question from an exhaustive set of studies, and to analysing the data in context to assess the strength of the evidence. The quality of systematic reviews varies, although Cochrane Reviews use rigorous scientific methods and are sometimes considered to be the ‘gold standard’. Standards have also been set by PRISMA and the Institute of Medicine.

The Australian Government funds free public access to the Cochrane Library through a national subscription. This gives Australians a unique level of access to quality evidence to inform their healthcare choices [2].

Protocols
Prior to undertaking a systematic review a ‘protocol’ is published outlining in detail the planned methods that will be used. By searching existing protocols you can ascertain that no-one is currently doing the research you wish to do and that a new review is required. Further, by stating your aims and study design in your protocol, you are reducing the risk of bias that may arise if you were to formulate the inclusion criteria for studies after seeing the results.

Anatomy of a systematic review
  • A clear clinical question is formulated
  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria are explicitly defined
  • A structured search strategy is developed and an extensive search for studies is conducted
  • Studies are selected based on pre-defined criteria
  • Quality of primary studies is assessed based on pre-defined criteria
  • Extraction of relevant data
  • Synthesis of data (possible meta-analysis)
  • Findings are reported/disseminated

Systematic reviews have some unique features that make them differ from standard literature reviews. Below are some requirements of Cochrane systematic reviews.
  • Must be updated every two years or include an explanation as to why this hasn’t happened.
  • Should have more than one author. This is effective in reducing potential author bias in selection of studies and data extraction, and to help detect any errors.
  • Can be replicated (and therefore verified) due to the comprehensive documentation of the search and selection methodologies used.
  • Poor quality studies are eliminated (via pre-defined exclusion criteria) even when there are few other studies available. This can provide clarity in areas previously thought to show opposing conclusions.
  • Where possible, an international perspective is taken and results considered in a broad context.
For more information see the Cochrane Handbook.

Meta Analyses
A meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the findings of relevant studies and analyses the resulting data set. Some systematic reviews will include a meta-analysis when assessing the effectiveness of a healthcare intervention.

Using Systematic Reviews
As a student you may be asked to use primary research articles to answer your research question. A systematic review is a secondary source so would not suit this purpose. However, if you find a relevant systematic review, looking at the reference list will give you a ready-made list of primary research articles on the topic! And of course, you may also use systematic reviews to guide your own health care decisions.

Systematic reviews can be found in the Cochrane Library, as well as in databases such as EBM ReviewsPLoS and the Campbell Collaboration. For assistance finding or conducting your own Systematic Reviews contact your subject librarian.


References
  1. Cochrane, A. L. (1979). 1931-1971: A critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In G. Teeling-Smith & N. Wells (Eds.). Medicines for the year 2000 (pp. 1-11). London: Office of Health Economics.
  2. Department of Health. (2014). National access. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-cochrane.htm


Read More



About the Blog

Welcome to the Monash University Library blog. Whether you are engaged in learning, teaching or research activities, the Library and its range of programs, activities and resources will contribute to your success. Here you will find useful information, ideas, tips and inspiration. Your comments on any of the articles are welcome.

If you believe that copyright material is available on this blog in such a way that infringes copyright, please contact our designated representative

.