Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Abstract Study Selection January 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Abstract Study Selection January 2009

  • 234 views
Published

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

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
234
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

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?