Abstract Study Selection January 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Abstract Study Selection January 2009

on

  • 492 views

Cochrane Review author training workshop, January 22-23, 2009 at the University of Calgary Health Sciences Centre

Cochrane Review author training workshop, January 22-23, 2009 at the University of Calgary Health Sciences Centre

Statistics

Views

Total Views
492
Views on SlideShare
486
Embed Views
6

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 6

http://www.franciscograjales.com 6

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Abstract Study Selection January 2009 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Study Selection for Systematic Reviews January 2009 Diane Lorenzetti MLS Centre for Health & Policy Studies Institute of Health Economics dllorenz@ucalgary.ca
  • 2. Process Decisions • How will search results be organized for reviewers? • Will more than 1 author on the team screen titles and abstracts? • Full text screening requires 2 independent authors – who will they be? Content vs non-content experts. • Resolving disagreements….consensus, 3rd reviewer or a combination? • Pre-testing of screening criteria – criteria linked to PICOS • Translating full-text of included studies published in other languages • How will reviewers will record their decisions/comments – consistency among reviewers • How will decision results be collated?
  • 3. Abstract screening process 1. Merge search results from various databases/other sources using a reference management software package (RefWorks, Reference Manager, EndNote etc….) 2. Remove duplicate results 3. Examine titles/abstracts against inclusion/exclusion criteria to eliminate irrelevant studies 4. At abstract screening stage, err on the side of inclusiveness – you may not be able to apply all screening criteria to every abstract 5. Retrieve full text reports of included studies
  • 4. Full text screening process • Identify and link multiple reports on the same study – each study included in a meta-analysis must be unique to avoid bias • Apply inclusion/exclusion criteria to full-text studies • 2 authors should independently review each paper • Correspond with study authors if you require additional details not provided in the full-text papers • Decide which papers will be included in your review
  • 5. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF INTERVENTIONS TO INCREASE CANCER SCREENING UPTAKE AMONG ASIAN WOMEN • ___________________________________________________ • STUDY SELECTION REVIEW FORM • • Reviewer •  DL  HQ  ML  SS  SM • • Article ID/First Author: ______________________________________ • • Yes No Uncertain •    Topic: Breast OR Cervical Cancer Screening •    Screening Method: Mammography OR Pap Smear •    Purpose: Evaluation of Intervention to Increase Initial Uptake •    Population: Chinese, Vietnamese, non-American Indian • or other Asian populations •    Study Design: RCT or Cohort •    Decision: Included in review? • • • Note: Papers coded as Uncertain by all reviewers at the abstract screening stage will be retrieved for further study •
  • 6. Questions? Comments?