This document provides an outline and overview of a speech on what makes a systematic review systematic from an epidemiological perspective. It discusses key aspects of systematic reviews including how they differ from non-systematic reviews, guidelines for conducting systematic reviews, inclusion of randomized and observational data, assessing risk of bias, and summarizing results. The speaker aims to explain the value added by systematic reviews over traditional literature reviews in providing objective and replicable summaries of evidence on a topic.
This document provides guidance on appraising a systematic review using a checklist. It addresses key questions like whether the systematic review had a clear research question, performed a comprehensive literature search, explicitly stated inclusion/exclusion criteria, assessed study quality, stated how results were combined statistically, reported absolute numbers and summary statistics, and discussed clinical relevance. The document notes that important details on these aspects can typically be found in sections like the Methods, Results, and Conclusion sections of a systematic review. It aims to help reviewers appraise important methodological aspects of a systematic review.
Basics of Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Part 3Rizwan S A
A 4 part lecture series on the basics of Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, Part 3 discusses the software needed and analytical techniques used for this purpose.
How to write the discussion section in research article ssuserd47a3c
The discussion section is the most important part of a research paper as it demonstrates critical thinking about the research problem. The purpose is to interpret findings in light of previous research and explain any new understandings. An effective model for writing the discussion section was developed by Yang and Allison, which outlines common moves such as restating the research problem and questions, presenting results, explaining the significance of findings, summarizing limitations, and suggesting further research.
The PRISMA 2020 statement provides guidance for reporting systematic reviews. This article presents the explanation and elaboration document for PRISMA 2020, which explains the rationale for each reporting item. For each item, the authors explain why reporting is recommended, present recommendations in bullet points, and provide an example from a published review. The goal is to facilitate uptake of PRISMA 2020 and improve transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews.
This document provides information on conducting a literature review. It defines a literature review and discusses the key components, including identifying and synthesizing existing works on a topic through a systematic process. The document outlines 7 steps for conducting a literature review: selecting research questions, sources, search terms, screening criteria, quality assessment, reviewing the literature, and synthesizing results. It also discusses different types of literature reviews and provides guidance on writing an introduction, body, and conclusion. Additionally, the document describes various resources and databases for searching literature, such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library. It emphasizes developing a search strategy using keywords and Boolean operators to efficiently extract relevant information.
This document outlines the process for conducting a systematic review. It defines a systematic review as a review that uses explicit and reproducible methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research and collect and analyze data from the included studies. It notes that systematic reviews help address biases and provide more robust evidence than individual studies. The document describes the key steps in a systematic review as developing a focused question, performing a comprehensive search, applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, assessing study quality, extracting data, performing meta-analyses if appropriate, and interpreting results. It also discusses challenges such as ensuring systematic reviews address developing world priorities and include studies conducted in those settings.
This document provides an introduction and overview of systematic reviews. It defines systematic reviews and their key characteristics, including having a clearly defined question and methodology for systematically searching, appraising, and synthesizing the available evidence to answer a specific question. It contrasts systematic reviews with other types of literature reviews and outlines the main steps in planning and conducting a systematic review, including developing a protocol and search strategy.
This document provides guidance on appraising a systematic review using a checklist. It addresses key questions like whether the systematic review had a clear research question, performed a comprehensive literature search, explicitly stated inclusion/exclusion criteria, assessed study quality, stated how results were combined statistically, reported absolute numbers and summary statistics, and discussed clinical relevance. The document notes that important details on these aspects can typically be found in sections like the Methods, Results, and Conclusion sections of a systematic review. It aims to help reviewers appraise important methodological aspects of a systematic review.
Basics of Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Part 3Rizwan S A
A 4 part lecture series on the basics of Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, Part 3 discusses the software needed and analytical techniques used for this purpose.
How to write the discussion section in research article ssuserd47a3c
The discussion section is the most important part of a research paper as it demonstrates critical thinking about the research problem. The purpose is to interpret findings in light of previous research and explain any new understandings. An effective model for writing the discussion section was developed by Yang and Allison, which outlines common moves such as restating the research problem and questions, presenting results, explaining the significance of findings, summarizing limitations, and suggesting further research.
The PRISMA 2020 statement provides guidance for reporting systematic reviews. This article presents the explanation and elaboration document for PRISMA 2020, which explains the rationale for each reporting item. For each item, the authors explain why reporting is recommended, present recommendations in bullet points, and provide an example from a published review. The goal is to facilitate uptake of PRISMA 2020 and improve transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews.
This document provides information on conducting a literature review. It defines a literature review and discusses the key components, including identifying and synthesizing existing works on a topic through a systematic process. The document outlines 7 steps for conducting a literature review: selecting research questions, sources, search terms, screening criteria, quality assessment, reviewing the literature, and synthesizing results. It also discusses different types of literature reviews and provides guidance on writing an introduction, body, and conclusion. Additionally, the document describes various resources and databases for searching literature, such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library. It emphasizes developing a search strategy using keywords and Boolean operators to efficiently extract relevant information.
This document outlines the process for conducting a systematic review. It defines a systematic review as a review that uses explicit and reproducible methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research and collect and analyze data from the included studies. It notes that systematic reviews help address biases and provide more robust evidence than individual studies. The document describes the key steps in a systematic review as developing a focused question, performing a comprehensive search, applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, assessing study quality, extracting data, performing meta-analyses if appropriate, and interpreting results. It also discusses challenges such as ensuring systematic reviews address developing world priorities and include studies conducted in those settings.
This document provides an introduction and overview of systematic reviews. It defines systematic reviews and their key characteristics, including having a clearly defined question and methodology for systematically searching, appraising, and synthesizing the available evidence to answer a specific question. It contrasts systematic reviews with other types of literature reviews and outlines the main steps in planning and conducting a systematic review, including developing a protocol and search strategy.
This document provides a summary of a meta-analysis presented by Preethi Rai on November 12, 2013. It defines meta-analysis as a quantitative approach that systematically combines the results of previous research studies in order to arrive at conclusions about the body of research. The summary explains that meta-analysis increases the overall sample size and statistical power to better understand treatment effects. It also addresses how meta-analysis can help resolve controversies, identify areas needing more research, and generalize study results. Limitations including publication bias and inability to improve original study quality are also noted.
COPE Asia-Pacific Workshop 2018 will feature an interactive cases workshop on publication ethics. The agenda includes an introduction to COPE, case presentations, table discussions of the cases, and a review of the cases. COPE promotes integrity in research and publication by assisting editors through policies and practices reflecting transparency and integrity principles. COPE describes its core practices for preserving scholarly integrity. The workshop will use real cases submitted to COPE's forum to demonstrate how editors can handle ethics issues like authorship disputes, plagiarism allegations, and data manipulation claims. Attendees will discuss potential responses to each case in small groups.
This document discusses meta-analysis, which involves systematically combining results from multiple studies to derive conclusions about a body of research. It describes the key steps in conducting a meta-analysis, including writing a research question and protocol, performing a comprehensive literature search, selecting studies, assessing study quality, extracting data, and analyzing data. Statistical methods for pooling results across studies using fixed and random effects models are also outlined. The document highlights strengths and limitations of meta-analysis for providing more precise estimates of treatment effects and identifying areas needing further research.
Literature monitoring for pv what are we doing at galderma elsevier webinarAnn-Marie Roche
The document discusses literature monitoring for pharmacovigilance. It describes weekly monitoring of individual case safety reports and periodic monitoring through development safety update reports and periodic benefit-risk evaluation reports. Key databases for literature searches are Medline and Embase. While Embase has more extensive drug coverage, searches on Medline via PubMed are more reliable due to the potential for loss of MeSH subheadings when mapping to Emtree and the risk of false negatives and positives when searching Embase alone. Literature searches support signal detection and periodic evaluation of a product's safety profile.
This document provides information about journal clubs and academic journals. It discusses the history of journal clubs, how to select and present articles in a journal club. It also covers different types of academic journals, how they are indexed and ranked. Key metrics for evaluating journals are discussed, including impact factor, eigenfactor score, and SJR. Predatory journals are defined and tips are provided to identify them. Different types of research articles are outlined. The use of impact factor to evaluate individual studies is critiqued. Ways to improve citation of one's own work are suggested.
Critical appraisal is the process of carefully and systematically analyze the research paper to judge its trustworthiness, its value and relevance in a particular context. (Amanda Burls 2009)
A critical review must identify the strengths and limitations in a research paper and this should be carried out in a systematic manner.
The Critical Appraisal helps in developing the necessary skills to make sense of scientific evidence, based on validity, results and relevance.
Predatory journals prioritize self-interest over scholarship. They do not conduct proper peer review and instead offer quick publication for a fee without editing. In contrast, legitimate open access journals maintain high standards. It is important to check if a journal is indexed in reputable databases like DOAJ or has an impact factor from JCR. Potential predatory journals can be identified using lists from Beall's or Cabell's. Librarians can help determine if a journal is predatory by investigating the publisher, editorial board, and review process.
1) A systematic review follows a strict methodology to identify and analyze relevant research on a focused question.
2) The process involves developing a protocol, searching multiple databases, screening studies, assessing bias, and synthesizing data.
3) Reporting guidelines like PRISMA ensure transparency and consistency in reporting systematic reviews.
Critical appraisal of a journal articleDrSahilKumar
This document provides guidance on critically appraising journal articles. It defines critical appraisal as systematically identifying the strengths and weaknesses of research to assess validity and usefulness. Key aspects to evaluate include relevance of the research question, appropriateness of study design, addressing biases, adherence to original protocol, statistical analyses, and conflicts of interest. Checklists like CASP, CONSORT, and STROBE provide frameworks to appraise study methodologies like randomized trials, systematic reviews, and observational studies. The goal of critical appraisal is for clinicians to identify high-quality evidence to inform clinical practice.
This document discusses predatory publishing, which involves dishonest publishers exploiting the open-access model by publishing counterfeit journals to dupe researchers into paying publication fees without providing expected services like peer review or visibility. It provides tips to help researchers identify predatory publishers, such as checking tools like Beall's list or asking colleagues about journal quality and impact. Various types of deceptive publishing practices are described, and criteria for evaluating publishers' legitimacy are outlined.
The document discusses plagiarism, including definitions, types, and how to avoid it. It defines plagiarism as stealing another's work and passing it off as one's own. There are four main types of plagiarism discussed: complete copying, patchwriting, paraphrasing without citation, and unintentional plagiarism through incorrect citation or quotation. The document stresses the importance of properly citing sources to avoid plagiarism and provides examples of each type. It also lists some anti-plagiarism software tools that can be used to check for plagiarism.
This workshop is meant to be an introduction to the systematic review process. Further information about systematic reviews was available through a research guide. http://libguides.ucalgary.ca/content.php?pid=593664
This document discusses critical appraisal of published medical research. It notes that thousands of new medical articles are published daily, making it difficult for clinicians to keep up-to-date. Critical appraisal involves assessing the validity, reliability, and applicability of a study rather than just dismissing it or looking only at the results. Key aspects of critical appraisal include describing the evidence, assessing internal validity by examining potential biases and confounding factors, evaluating external validity and whether results can apply to other populations, and comparing results to other evidence. The document provides guidance on how to critically appraise studies and lists resources for further information.
The document provides an introduction to systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It discusses that systematic reviews aim to reduce bias by comprehensively identifying, appraising, and synthesizing all relevant studies on a topic. They often include a meta-analysis to statistically synthesize data from multiple studies. Systematic reviews use a predefined protocol and search strategy to find all studies, whereas traditional reviews may not consider study quality or report how conclusions follow from evidence. The key steps in a systematic review are developing a protocol, conducting a comprehensive literature search, assessing study eligibility, extracting data, critically appraising studies, and synthesizing results.
This document discusses research questions and the process of formulating research problems. It begins by defining research and different types of research. It then covers developing research questions, including originating questions from prior literature and formulating questions that are feasible, interesting, novel, ethical and relevant. The document outlines steps for formulating a research problem, including selecting a broad subject area and narrowing it to specific questions. It stresses reviewing literature throughout the process and considering available data, resources, and ethics. Finally, it discusses writing research protocols that specify predictors, outcomes, populations and study plans to address potential problems.
This document outlines the process for conducting a systematic review. It begins by defining a systematic review as a review of research on a clearly formulated question that uses explicit and reproducible methods. It notes systematic reviews aim to identify, appraise, and synthesize all high-quality research evidence relevant to that question. The document then discusses why systematic reviews are important for summarizing evidence, limiting bias, and avoiding errors. It provides examples of how systematic reviews can help establish evidence-based practices. Finally, it describes the typical steps involved in conducting a systematic review, from developing a question to interpreting results.
Systematic Reviews: the process, quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods ...healthlibaust2012
This document discusses systematic reviews and their process. It defines systematic reviews as attempts to identify, appraise, and synthesize all empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. It notes there are quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods reviews. The document outlines the steps in conducting a systematic review, including developing a protocol and research question, locating studies, assessing studies, extracting and analyzing data, and presenting results.
This poster summarizes a document presenting a meta-analysis of individual patient data (IPD) from multiple randomized controlled trials. It discusses three statistical models for conducting a one-stage IPD meta-analysis using mixed effects regression models. The first model includes a fixed common intercept and random treatment effects. The second allows for fixed trial-specific intercepts and baseline effects. The third considers random trial intercepts and treatment effects. The document outlines how to implement each model in Stata software.
This document provides a summary of a meta-analysis presented by Preethi Rai on November 12, 2013. It defines meta-analysis as a quantitative approach that systematically combines the results of previous research studies in order to arrive at conclusions about the body of research. The summary explains that meta-analysis increases the overall sample size and statistical power to better understand treatment effects. It also addresses how meta-analysis can help resolve controversies, identify areas needing more research, and generalize study results. Limitations including publication bias and inability to improve original study quality are also noted.
COPE Asia-Pacific Workshop 2018 will feature an interactive cases workshop on publication ethics. The agenda includes an introduction to COPE, case presentations, table discussions of the cases, and a review of the cases. COPE promotes integrity in research and publication by assisting editors through policies and practices reflecting transparency and integrity principles. COPE describes its core practices for preserving scholarly integrity. The workshop will use real cases submitted to COPE's forum to demonstrate how editors can handle ethics issues like authorship disputes, plagiarism allegations, and data manipulation claims. Attendees will discuss potential responses to each case in small groups.
This document discusses meta-analysis, which involves systematically combining results from multiple studies to derive conclusions about a body of research. It describes the key steps in conducting a meta-analysis, including writing a research question and protocol, performing a comprehensive literature search, selecting studies, assessing study quality, extracting data, and analyzing data. Statistical methods for pooling results across studies using fixed and random effects models are also outlined. The document highlights strengths and limitations of meta-analysis for providing more precise estimates of treatment effects and identifying areas needing further research.
Literature monitoring for pv what are we doing at galderma elsevier webinarAnn-Marie Roche
The document discusses literature monitoring for pharmacovigilance. It describes weekly monitoring of individual case safety reports and periodic monitoring through development safety update reports and periodic benefit-risk evaluation reports. Key databases for literature searches are Medline and Embase. While Embase has more extensive drug coverage, searches on Medline via PubMed are more reliable due to the potential for loss of MeSH subheadings when mapping to Emtree and the risk of false negatives and positives when searching Embase alone. Literature searches support signal detection and periodic evaluation of a product's safety profile.
This document provides information about journal clubs and academic journals. It discusses the history of journal clubs, how to select and present articles in a journal club. It also covers different types of academic journals, how they are indexed and ranked. Key metrics for evaluating journals are discussed, including impact factor, eigenfactor score, and SJR. Predatory journals are defined and tips are provided to identify them. Different types of research articles are outlined. The use of impact factor to evaluate individual studies is critiqued. Ways to improve citation of one's own work are suggested.
Critical appraisal is the process of carefully and systematically analyze the research paper to judge its trustworthiness, its value and relevance in a particular context. (Amanda Burls 2009)
A critical review must identify the strengths and limitations in a research paper and this should be carried out in a systematic manner.
The Critical Appraisal helps in developing the necessary skills to make sense of scientific evidence, based on validity, results and relevance.
Predatory journals prioritize self-interest over scholarship. They do not conduct proper peer review and instead offer quick publication for a fee without editing. In contrast, legitimate open access journals maintain high standards. It is important to check if a journal is indexed in reputable databases like DOAJ or has an impact factor from JCR. Potential predatory journals can be identified using lists from Beall's or Cabell's. Librarians can help determine if a journal is predatory by investigating the publisher, editorial board, and review process.
1) A systematic review follows a strict methodology to identify and analyze relevant research on a focused question.
2) The process involves developing a protocol, searching multiple databases, screening studies, assessing bias, and synthesizing data.
3) Reporting guidelines like PRISMA ensure transparency and consistency in reporting systematic reviews.
Critical appraisal of a journal articleDrSahilKumar
This document provides guidance on critically appraising journal articles. It defines critical appraisal as systematically identifying the strengths and weaknesses of research to assess validity and usefulness. Key aspects to evaluate include relevance of the research question, appropriateness of study design, addressing biases, adherence to original protocol, statistical analyses, and conflicts of interest. Checklists like CASP, CONSORT, and STROBE provide frameworks to appraise study methodologies like randomized trials, systematic reviews, and observational studies. The goal of critical appraisal is for clinicians to identify high-quality evidence to inform clinical practice.
This document discusses predatory publishing, which involves dishonest publishers exploiting the open-access model by publishing counterfeit journals to dupe researchers into paying publication fees without providing expected services like peer review or visibility. It provides tips to help researchers identify predatory publishers, such as checking tools like Beall's list or asking colleagues about journal quality and impact. Various types of deceptive publishing practices are described, and criteria for evaluating publishers' legitimacy are outlined.
The document discusses plagiarism, including definitions, types, and how to avoid it. It defines plagiarism as stealing another's work and passing it off as one's own. There are four main types of plagiarism discussed: complete copying, patchwriting, paraphrasing without citation, and unintentional plagiarism through incorrect citation or quotation. The document stresses the importance of properly citing sources to avoid plagiarism and provides examples of each type. It also lists some anti-plagiarism software tools that can be used to check for plagiarism.
This workshop is meant to be an introduction to the systematic review process. Further information about systematic reviews was available through a research guide. http://libguides.ucalgary.ca/content.php?pid=593664
This document discusses critical appraisal of published medical research. It notes that thousands of new medical articles are published daily, making it difficult for clinicians to keep up-to-date. Critical appraisal involves assessing the validity, reliability, and applicability of a study rather than just dismissing it or looking only at the results. Key aspects of critical appraisal include describing the evidence, assessing internal validity by examining potential biases and confounding factors, evaluating external validity and whether results can apply to other populations, and comparing results to other evidence. The document provides guidance on how to critically appraise studies and lists resources for further information.
The document provides an introduction to systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It discusses that systematic reviews aim to reduce bias by comprehensively identifying, appraising, and synthesizing all relevant studies on a topic. They often include a meta-analysis to statistically synthesize data from multiple studies. Systematic reviews use a predefined protocol and search strategy to find all studies, whereas traditional reviews may not consider study quality or report how conclusions follow from evidence. The key steps in a systematic review are developing a protocol, conducting a comprehensive literature search, assessing study eligibility, extracting data, critically appraising studies, and synthesizing results.
This document discusses research questions and the process of formulating research problems. It begins by defining research and different types of research. It then covers developing research questions, including originating questions from prior literature and formulating questions that are feasible, interesting, novel, ethical and relevant. The document outlines steps for formulating a research problem, including selecting a broad subject area and narrowing it to specific questions. It stresses reviewing literature throughout the process and considering available data, resources, and ethics. Finally, it discusses writing research protocols that specify predictors, outcomes, populations and study plans to address potential problems.
This document outlines the process for conducting a systematic review. It begins by defining a systematic review as a review of research on a clearly formulated question that uses explicit and reproducible methods. It notes systematic reviews aim to identify, appraise, and synthesize all high-quality research evidence relevant to that question. The document then discusses why systematic reviews are important for summarizing evidence, limiting bias, and avoiding errors. It provides examples of how systematic reviews can help establish evidence-based practices. Finally, it describes the typical steps involved in conducting a systematic review, from developing a question to interpreting results.
Systematic Reviews: the process, quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods ...healthlibaust2012
This document discusses systematic reviews and their process. It defines systematic reviews as attempts to identify, appraise, and synthesize all empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. It notes there are quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods reviews. The document outlines the steps in conducting a systematic review, including developing a protocol and research question, locating studies, assessing studies, extracting and analyzing data, and presenting results.
This poster summarizes a document presenting a meta-analysis of individual patient data (IPD) from multiple randomized controlled trials. It discusses three statistical models for conducting a one-stage IPD meta-analysis using mixed effects regression models. The first model includes a fixed common intercept and random treatment effects. The second allows for fixed trial-specific intercepts and baseline effects. The third considers random trial intercepts and treatment effects. The document outlines how to implement each model in Stata software.
Presentation of my doctoral thesis from Karolinska Institutet, dept. of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics:
"IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN - Epidemiological Studies of Parkinson's Disease".
Held on the day of the thesis defence, 10 January 2014.
The full thesis can be downloaded here: http://publications.ki.se/xmlui/handle/10616/41767
A systematic review is a comprehensive literature review designed to answer a specific clinical question using a pre-defined protocol. It requires at least 12 months to conduct due to extensive searches of published and unpublished studies, validity assessments of included studies, data collection, analysis, and keeping the review up-to-date. In contrast, a traditional literature review does not follow a pre-specified protocol or aim to be comprehensive. Systematic reviews also publish detailed search strategies to allow replication and apply statistical methods like meta-analysis to synthesized data from included studies.
This document provides an overview of systematic literature reviews. It defines systematic reviews as reviews that use explicit and reproducible methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research to answer a specific question. The key steps outlined include developing a protocol, formulating a review question using PICO elements, establishing inclusion/exclusion criteria, systematically searching literature sources, selecting studies, assessing study quality, extracting data, synthesizing results, and interpreting findings. Examples are provided for many of the steps like developing search strategies, creating logs to document the process, and tools for summarizing evidence like PRISMA diagrams and data tables.
Systematic reviews, rapid reviews, and scoping reviews are all types of literature reviews but differ in their methods and objectives. Systematic reviews have a narrow question and use comprehensive searches and selection criteria to minimize bias. They analyze available studies to answer a specific question. Rapid reviews have time constraints and omit some systematic review stages to provide timely information. Scoping reviews have broader questions and identify the nature and scope of research on a topic, including identifying gaps. They involve iterative searches and selection and usually do not critically appraise studies.
A research study Writing a Systematic Review in Clinical Research – PubricaPubrica
A systematic review summarises the findings of precisely organized healthcare research (controlled trials) and gives a high degree of evidence on the efficacy of healthcare interventions. The evidence may be used to make decisions and guide healthcare recommendations.
Reference: https://bit.ly/3morikF
For our services: https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/
Why Pubrica:
When you order our services, We promise you the following – Plagiarism free | always on Time | 24*7 customer support | Written to international Standard | Unlimited Revisions support | Medical writing Expert | Publication Support | Biostatistical experts | High-quality Subject Matter Experts.
Contact us:
Web: https://pubrica.com/
Blog: https://pubrica.com/academy/
Email: sales@pubrica.com
WhatsApp : +91 9884350006
United Kingdom: +44-1618186353
A research study writing a systematic review in clinical research – pubricaPubrica
A systematic review summarises the findings of precisely organized healthcare research (controlled trials) and gives a high degree of evidence on the efficacy of healthcare interventions. The evidence may be used to make decisions and guide healthcare recommendations.
Reference: https://bit.ly/3morikF
For our services: https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/
Why Pubrica:
When you order our services, We promise you the following – Plagiarism free | always on Time | 24*7 customer support | Written to international Standard | Unlimited Revisions support | Medical writing Expert | Publication Support | Biostatistical experts | High-quality Subject Matter Experts.
Contact us:
Web: https://pubrica.com/
Blog: https://pubrica.com/academy/
Email: sales@pubrica.com
WhatsApp : +91 9884350006
United Kingdom: +44-1618186353
• A systematic review is a secondary research as it requires a careful analysis of the quality, quantity, and consistency of research findings.
• Systematic reviews formulate research questions that are specifically targeted and designed to provide a complete summary of the issue based on evidence.
• The methodology used in systematic reviews is specific and precise, which intends to minimize bias by increasing the reliability of the drawn conclusion.
Full information: https://bit.ly/2ZNTlPU
Reference: https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/
Why pubrica?
When you order our services, we promise you the following – Plagiarism free, always on Time, outstanding customer support, written to Standard, Unlimited Revisions support and High-quality Subject Matter Experts.
Contact us :
Web: https://pubrica.com/
Blog: https://pubrica.com/academy/
Email: sales@pubrica.com
WhatsApp : +91 9884350006
United Kingdom: +44-1618186353
Research design and methodology | Research design and methodology | Research ...Pubrica
A scientific approach in research refers to a systematic review and objective methodology employed to investigate phenomena, gather data, and derive conclusions. It involves the application of rigorous scientific research methods and principles to ensure the findings' validity, reliability, and replicability.
Know more @ https://pubrica.com/insights/experimental-methodology/scientific-approach-in-research/
Visit us @ https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/
Comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approachesDr. Rania Al- Jilani
This document compares and contrasts the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. It finds that while both approaches have merits, they also each have limitations. Quantitative research allows for standardized measurement and comparison but lacks depth, while qualitative research provides rich insights but results are not universally generalizable. The document concludes that using both methodologies complementarily for the same research topic may provide better outcomes than relying on just one alone.
Level of Evidence- Dina Hudiya Nadana Lubis.pptxdina410715
This document provides an overview of different types of evidence and study designs used to assess levels of evidence in healthcare research. It defines level of evidence as a hierarchical system used to assess the quality and strength of research findings. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies are described as primary sources of evidence, while systematic reviews and meta-analyses are secondary sources. The advantages and disadvantages of each study design are summarized in a table. Systematic reviews synthesize existing evidence through a structured process, while meta-analyses conduct quantitative analyses to derive summary effect sizes. Expert opinion is also discussed as a source of evidence.
Presenting a published paper:
"Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review
approach"
This document discusses various study designs used in research including observational and interventional studies. It describes the key characteristics and uses of descriptive studies like case reports and cross-sectional surveys. Analytical observational studies examined include ecological, cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies. Experimental or interventional studies such as randomized controlled trials are also outlined. The document provides examples and discusses the hierarchy and appropriate uses of different study designs.
Study designs, Epidemiological study design, Types of studiesDr Lipilekha Patnaik
Study design, Epidemiological study designA study design is a specific plan or protocol
for conducting the study, which allows the investigator to translate the conceptual hypothesis into an operational one.
Pubrica's team of researchers and authors develop Scientific and medical research papers that can act as an indispensable tool to the practitioner/authors. Here is how we help.
A systematic review is a literature review focused on answering a specific question by identifying, appraising, selecting, and synthesizing high-quality research evidence relevant to that question. It follows a rigorous methodology to overcome bias, including formulating a research question, conducting a comprehensive literature search, applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, assessing study quality, and analyzing results. The results are often combined using meta-analysis to provide a quantitative summary of effects across multiple studies.
This document provides an introduction to critical appraisal. It defines critical appraisal as systematically weighing the quality and relevance of research to inform decision making. The document outlines different types of research studies including systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies. It discusses how to critically appraise studies by assessing their validity, results, and relevance. Key aspects of appraising randomized controlled trials are described such as randomization, blinding, accounting for all participants, and interpreting results including p-values and confidence intervals. The goal is to help readers gain skills to critically evaluate research.
A complex intervention combining professional education, informatics, and financial incentives reduced high-risk prescribing of antiplatelet medications and NSAIDs in primary care practices in Scotland, according to a cluster-randomized controlled trial. The intervention led to a 37% reduction in the rate of high-risk prescribing, from 3.7% to 2.2% of patients. It also significantly reduced hospital admissions for gastrointestinal bleeding and heart failure but not for acute kidney injury. The trial provides evidence that multifaceted interventions can improve prescribing practices and clinical outcomes.
This document discusses different types of research designs, including descriptive, exploratory, experimental, and diagnostic designs. It provides details on what each design involves, such as descriptive designs attempting to describe characteristics of individuals and exploratory designs examining phenomena to develop hypotheses. The document also outlines key aspects of different designs, such as descriptive designs answering who, what, where, when and how questions, and experimental designs enabling comparison of conditions and drawing conclusions about observed differences. Finally, it discusses how research objectives influence the choice of appropriate research design, such as exploratory designs for gaining background information.
This is lesson 6 of the course on Research Methodology conducted at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities of the Rajarata University of Sri Lanka
The document discusses three topics related to research: 1) The stages involved in a research project, which includes problem identification, literature review, hypothesis formulation, data collection and analysis, and reporting. 2) Hypothesis testing, which involves specifying the null and alternative hypotheses and using statistical analysis to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. 3) Problems encountered by researchers in developing countries, such as lack of training, funding, resources, and priority given to research. The presentation provides an overview of key concepts and challenges for researchers.
The document discusses various types of research studies and common problems in research reporting. It describes basic and applied research, as well as animal studies, case studies, clinical trials, correlational studies, cross-sectional surveys, epidemiological studies, experimental studies, literature reviews, longitudinal studies, meta-analyses, and problems that can occur in writing research proposals and reports. Common issues include plagiarism, poor formatting, weak structure of sentences, and improperly organizing the different sections of a research report.
1. The document defines research methods as strategies used to collect and analyze data to better understand a topic or uncover new information.
2. Quantitative research uses numerical data and statistical analysis while qualitative research uses narrative descriptions.
3. The main purposes of research are exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory. Exploratory research explores new areas, descriptive research expands knowledge on current issues, and explanatory research examines the impact of changes.
4. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are discussed, including interviews, surveys, observation, and case studies for qualitative and surveys, descriptive, and correlational research for quantitative.
This document provides an overview of quantitative research methods. It defines quantitative research as involving the systematic collection and analysis of numeric data. The main types of quantitative research designs are described as descriptive, correlational, quasi-experimental, and experimental. Descriptive design seeks to describe a variable, correlational design explores relationships between variables, quasi-experimental establishes cause-effect relationships without manipulation, and experimental establishes cause-effect through manipulation. The document also discusses key aspects of the research process like developing a hypothesis using the scientific method.
Similar to Updated - What makes systematic review systematic - Anna Sidorchuk (20)
TEST BANK For Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, 14th Edition by Bertram G. Kat...rightmanforbloodline
TEST BANK For Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, 14th Edition by Bertram G. Katzung, Verified Chapters 1 - 66, Complete Newest Version.
TEST BANK For Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, 14th Edition by Bertram G. Katzung, Verified Chapters 1 - 66, Complete Newest Version.
TEST BANK For Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, 14th Edition by Bertram G. Katzung, Verified Chapters 1 - 66, Complete Newest Version.
TEST BANK For Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, 14th Edition by Bertram G. Katzung, Verified Chapters 1 - 66, Complete Newest Version.
Basavarajeeyam is a Sreshta Sangraha grantha (Compiled book ), written by Neelkanta kotturu Basavaraja Virachita. It contains 25 Prakaranas, First 24 Chapters related to Rogas& 25th to Rasadravyas.
share - Lions, tigers, AI and health misinformation, oh my!.pptxTina Purnat
• Pitfalls and pivots needed to use AI effectively in public health
• Evidence-based strategies to address health misinformation effectively
• Building trust with communities online and offline
• Equipping health professionals to address questions, concerns and health misinformation
• Assessing risk and mitigating harm from adverse health narratives in communities, health workforce and health system
TEST BANK For An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 7th Edition by Bryan Kol...rightmanforbloodline
TEST BANK For An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 7th Edition by Bryan Kolb, Ian Q. Whishaw, Verified Chapters 1 - 16, Complete Newest Versio
TEST BANK For An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 7th Edition by Bryan Kolb, Ian Q. Whishaw, Verified Chapters 1 - 16, Complete Newest Version
TEST BANK For An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 7th Edition by Bryan Kolb, Ian Q. Whishaw, Verified Chapters 1 - 16, Complete Newest Version
- Video recording of this lecture in English language: https://youtu.be/kqbnxVAZs-0
- Video recording of this lecture in Arabic language: https://youtu.be/SINlygW1Mpc
- Link to download the book free: https://nephrotube.blogspot.com/p/nephrotube-nephrology-books.html
- Link to NephroTube website: www.NephroTube.com
- Link to NephroTube social media accounts: https://nephrotube.blogspot.com/p/join-nephrotube-on-social-media.html
Osteoporosis - Definition , Evaluation and Management .pdfJim Jacob Roy
Osteoporosis is an increasing cause of morbidity among the elderly.
In this document , a brief outline of osteoporosis is given , including the risk factors of osteoporosis fractures , the indications for testing bone mineral density and the management of osteoporosis
Cell Therapy Expansion and Challenges in Autoimmune DiseaseHealth Advances
There is increasing confidence that cell therapies will soon play a role in the treatment of autoimmune disorders, but the extent of this impact remains to be seen. Early readouts on autologous CAR-Ts in lupus are encouraging, but manufacturing and cost limitations are likely to restrict access to highly refractory patients. Allogeneic CAR-Ts have the potential to broaden access to earlier lines of treatment due to their inherent cost benefits, however they will need to demonstrate comparable or improved efficacy to established modalities.
In addition to infrastructure and capacity constraints, CAR-Ts face a very different risk-benefit dynamic in autoimmune compared to oncology, highlighting the need for tolerable therapies with low adverse event risk. CAR-NK and Treg-based therapies are also being developed in certain autoimmune disorders and may demonstrate favorable safety profiles. Several novel non-cell therapies such as bispecific antibodies, nanobodies, and RNAi drugs, may also offer future alternative competitive solutions with variable value propositions.
Widespread adoption of cell therapies will not only require strong efficacy and safety data, but also adapted pricing and access strategies. At oncology-based price points, CAR-Ts are unlikely to achieve broad market access in autoimmune disorders, with eligible patient populations that are potentially orders of magnitude greater than the number of currently addressable cancer patients. Developers have made strides towards reducing cell therapy COGS while improving manufacturing efficiency, but payors will inevitably restrict access until more sustainable pricing is achieved.
Despite these headwinds, industry leaders and investors remain confident that cell therapies are poised to address significant unmet need in patients suffering from autoimmune disorders. However, the extent of this impact on the treatment landscape remains to be seen, as the industry rapidly approaches an inflection point.
These lecture slides, by Dr Sidra Arshad, offer a quick overview of the physiological basis of a normal electrocardiogram.
Learning objectives:
1. Define an electrocardiogram (ECG) and electrocardiography
2. Describe how dipoles generated by the heart produce the waveforms of the ECG
3. Describe the components of a normal electrocardiogram of a typical bipolar lead (limb II)
4. Differentiate between intervals and segments
5. Enlist some common indications for obtaining an ECG
6. Describe the flow of current around the heart during the cardiac cycle
7. Discuss the placement and polarity of the leads of electrocardiograph
8. Describe the normal electrocardiograms recorded from the limb leads and explain the physiological basis of the different records that are obtained
9. Define mean electrical vector (axis) of the heart and give the normal range
10. Define the mean QRS vector
11. Describe the axes of leads (hexagonal reference system)
12. Comprehend the vectorial analysis of the normal ECG
13. Determine the mean electrical axis of the ventricular QRS and appreciate the mean axis deviation
14. Explain the concepts of current of injury, J point, and their significance
Study Resources:
1. Chapter 11, Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology, 14th edition
2. Chapter 9, Human Physiology - From Cells to Systems, Lauralee Sherwood, 9th edition
3. Chapter 29, Ganong’s Review of Medical Physiology, 26th edition
4. Electrocardiogram, StatPearls - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549803/
5. ECG in Medical Practice by ABM Abdullah, 4th edition
6. Chapter 3, Cardiology Explained, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2214/
7. ECG Basics, http://www.nataliescasebook.com/tag/e-c-g-basics
Updated - What makes systematic review systematic - Anna Sidorchuk
1. What makes a systematic review
systematic? Epidemiologic perspectives
ANNA SIDORCHUK, MD, PHD, RESEARCH COORDINATOR
KAROLINSKA INSTITUTET
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCES
ANNA.SIDORCHUK@KI.SE
THE EPIDEMIOLOGY PHD PROGRAM SEMINAR
APRIL 29, 2013
2. Outline of the speech
Non-systematic vs. systematic review
Why do systematic reviews? What is the added value?
PRISMA/MOOSE/AMSTAR guidelines and checklists
Randomized vs. observational data
Process (criteria, optimize search, determine data to be
abstracted, quality score)
Anna Sidorchuk 2
3. 30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
Primary data versus secondary data
Traditionally, researchers collect and analyze their own data
(referred to as primary data)
Secondary data analysis is based on data collected by someone
else (or reanalysis of your own published data)
Systematic review is one of the ways to analyze secondary data
Systematic review - systematic, qualitative review of published
research in a particular field
Adapted from: ESRC Workshop, Researcher Development Initiative, Department of Education, University of Oxford
4. 30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
What The Lancet thinks about
systematic reviews
In 2005, the editors wrote:
“. . . we will require authors of clinical trials submitted to The
Lancet to include a clear summary of previous research findings,
and to explain how their trial’s findings affect this summary. The
relation between existing and new evidence should be illustrated
by direct reference to an existing systematic review and meta-
analysis…”
5. Stages of waste in the production and reporting
of research evidence relevant to clinicians and
patients by Chalmers and Glasziou (Lancet, vol. 374, 2009)
Anna Sidorchuk 5
6. 30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
Why do we do systematic reviews?
To help busy clinicians to summarize current knowledge in
relation to the area of interest
To provide high-quality research evidence to guide clinical
practice
To support clinical decision-making
To support research proposals
7. 30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
How systematic review can help busy
clinicians?
By systematically:
identifying,
appraising,
synthesizing,
and, if appropriate, statistically combining studies on a
specific topic
8. 30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
In classifications of levels of evidence,
systematic reviews are included in the highest level of
evidence
9. Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking
evidence evaluating healthcare interventions
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Volume 12, Issue 1, pages 77-84, 20 DEC 2002 DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00662.x
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00662.x/full#f1
10. 30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
Meta-analysis
A statistical method to combine findings across studies
Should be considered within the framework of systematic reviews
review needs to use a systematic approach to minimize bias, address
the issues of the completeness of the evidence, quality of studies
and combinability of studies
Meta-analysis - the statistical pooling of the results of
studies that are part of a systematic review
11. When systematic review is required?
Before undertaking a systematic review it is necessary to
check whether there are already existing or ongoing reviews,
and whether a new review is justified
Search:
the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)
the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
Adapted from: Systematic Reviews. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2009). Centre for Reviews and
Dissemination, University of York. ISBN 978-1-900640-47-3.
12. When is meta-analysis appropriate?
There exists a critical mass of comparable studies designed to
address a common research question
Data are presented in a form that allows the meta-analyst to
compute an effect size for each study
Characteristics of each study are described in sufficient detail
to allow meta-analysts to compare characteristics of different
studies and to judge the quality of each study
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
13. Systematic reviews vs. non-systematic
Compared to traditional literature reviews:
there is a definite methodology employed in the research analysis
(more like that used in primary research); and
the results of the included studies are quantified to a standard metric
thus allowing for statistical techniques for further analysis.
Therefore process of reviewing research literature is more
objective, transparent, and replicable; less biased and
idiosyncratic to the whims of a particular researcher
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
14. Systematic reviews vs. non-systematic
Feature Systematic review Narrative review
Question Often a focused one question Often broad in scope
Sources and search Comprehensive sources and
explicit search strategy
Not usually specified,
potentially biased
Selection Criterion-based selection,
uniformly applied
Not usually specified,
potentially biased
Appraisal Rigorous critical appraisal Variable
Synthesis
Qualitative summary that
includes statistical synthesis
(meta-analysis)
Often a qualitative summary
Inferences Usually evidence-based Sometimes evidence-based
Anna Sidorchuk 14
Adapted from: Y Yuan and R H Hunt, Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104:1086–1092; doi:10.1038/ajg.2009.118
15. 18 September, 2009Anna Sidorchuk 15
Increase in the number of published
meta-analyses (PubMed references)
Publication year
16. • The essence of good science is replicable and generalisable results
Do we get the same answer to research questions when we run the study again?
• The primary aims of meta-analysis is to test the generalisability of results
across a set of studies designed to answer the same research question
Are the results consistent? If not, what are the differences in the studies that explain
the lack of consistency?
Why are systematic review and meta-
analysis important?
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
17. When there is systematic variation in outcomes from different studies,
meta-analysis tries to explain these differences in terms of study
characteristics:
measures used
study design
participant characteristics
controls for potential bias
etc.
If the results of individual studies are
inconclusive or controversial…
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
18. “… doing a meta-analysis is easy,
doing one well is hard.”
Ingram Olkin, Stanford University
19. Benefits of systematic reviews, incl. meta-
analysis
Increased power: by combining information from many
individual studies, the meta-analyst is able to detect systematic
trends not obvious in the individual studies
Conclusions based on the set of studies are likely to be more
accurate than any one study
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
20. Benefits of systematic reviews, incl. meta-
analysis
Improved precision: based on information from many studies,
the meta-analyst can provide a more precise estimate of the
population effect size (and a confidence interval)
Provides potential corrections for potential biases,
measurement error and other possible artefacts
Identifies directions for further primary studies to address
unresolved issues
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
21. Benefits of systematic reviews, incl.
meta-analysis
Typically there is study-to-study variation in results. When
this is the case, the meta-analyst can explore what
characteristics of the studies explain these differences (e.g.,
study design) in ways not easy to do in individual studies
Easy to interpret summary statistics (useful if communicating
findings to a non-academic audience)
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
22. Limitations of systematic reviews, incl.
meta-analysis
Comparing apples and oranges
Quality of the studies included in the meta-analysis
What to do when studies don’t report sufficient information
(e.g., “non-significant” findings)?
Including multiple outcomes in the analysis (e.g., different
achievement scores)
Publication bias
22
23. Limitations of systematic reviews, incl.
meta-analysis
Meta-analysis conclusions may still differ if different studies
are sampled or excluded for different reasons
Need to be explicit
Quality standards
Inappropriate handling of data can lead to wrong conclusions
Sample size consideration
23
24. Publication bias
Studies that are published are more likely to report
statistically significant findings. This is a source of potential
bias
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
25. Publication bias
The debate about using only published studies:
peer-reviewed studies are presumably of a higher quality
VERSUS
significant findings are more likely to be published than non-
significant findings
There is no agreed upon solution. However, one should retrieve all studies
that meet the eligibility criteria, and be explicit with how they dealt with
publication bias. Some methods for dealing with publication bias have
been developed (e.g., Fail-safe N, Trim and Fill method)
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
26. RCT vs. observational studies
Both are fine as long as all the methodological issues are
addressed
If your focus is effect of therapy or prevention – use RCTs
If you are interested in prognosis, etiology, adverse
effects, association between risk factors and outcomes –
use observational studies
Fine to use both types of studies in the same review
Anna Sidorchuk 26
27. Steps in a meta-analysis
Establish
research
question
Define
relevant
studies
Develop
code
materials
Locate and
collate
studies
Pilot coding;
coding
Data entry
and effect
size
calculation
Main
analyses
Supplementar
y analyses
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk Adapted from: ESRC Workshop, Researcher Development Initiative, Department of Education, University of Oxford
28. Practical tips
Define all key elements (PICO model) a priory
Formulate the research question as clear as possible
Make an agreement with all your co-authors on the key elements
If needed ask the experts in the area of outcome or/and exposure for
advice
Keep everything in the protocol
When writing an article include the elements in the aim
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
29. Practical tips
Define all inclusion/exclusion criteria and components of search a priory
Make criteria and the components as clear as possible, but feel free to
make some changes during the actual literature search (usually due to
availability of data, e.g. if only retrospective studies are available on the
issue, or no info on ethnicity, etc)
Make an agreement with all co-authors on abovementioned
Again, keep everything in the review protocol
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
30. Practical tips
Define coding and form for data extraction a priory
Make an agreement with all co-authors on abovementioned
If use Excel for data extraction and, therefore, for coding, keep the legend
for each coding element within the same file on the separate sheet
As an alternative – use Access
Keep everything in the review protocol!
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
31. Practical tips
Define as detailed as possible by reading other meta-analysis and
systematic reviews on the similar outcome(s) and exposure(s):
All key words
MESH terms
Define the electronic sources to be used for your search
Ask librarians for advice on search strategy and technic
Define if grey literature will be included
Keep everything in the protocol!!!
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
33. Quality Standards in Systematic
reviews and Meta-Analysis
Several organizations work on this
Cochrane collaboration
http://www.cochrane.org
Campbell collaboration
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org
Consort: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, includes
Quorum: Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses group
http://www.consort-statement.org/mod_product/uploads/QUOROM
Statement 1999.pdf
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-
Analyses), AMSTAR (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews)
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
34. 30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
PRISMA: Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-
analysis.
Section/Topic # Checklist Item
Reported
on Page #
TITLE
Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
ABSTRACT
Structured
summary
2
Provide a structured summary including, as applicable:
background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria,
participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis
methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key
findings; systematic review registration number.
INTRODUCTION
Rationale 3
Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is
already known.
Objectives 4
Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with
reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes,
and study design (PICOS).
35. 30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
PRISMA: Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-
analysis.
Section/Topic # Checklist Item
Reported
on Page #
METHODS
Protocol and
registration
5
Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be
accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide
registration information including registration number.
Eligibility
criteria
6
Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-
up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered,
language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility,
giving rationale.
Information
sources
7
Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of
coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional
studies) in the search and date last searched.
Search 8
Present full electronic search strategy for at least one
database, including any limits used, such that it could be
repeated.
Study selection 9
State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening,
eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable,
included in the meta-analysis).
Data collection
process
10
Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted
forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for
obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Data items 11
List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g.,
PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and
simplifications made.
36. 30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
PRISMA: Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-
analysis.
Section/Topic # Checklist Item
Reported
on Page #
METHODS
Risk of bias in
individual studies
12
Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of
individual studies (including specification of whether this
was done at the study or outcome level), and how this
information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Summary
measures
13
State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio,
difference in means).
Synthesis of
results
14
Describe the methods of handling data and combining
results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency
(e.g., I2
) for each meta-analysis.
Risk of bias
across studies
15
Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the
cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective
reporting within studies).
Additional
analyses
16
Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or
subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating
which were pre-specified.
37. 30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
PRISMA: Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-
analysis.
Section/Topic # Checklist Item
Reported
on Page #
RESULTS
Study selection 17
Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility,
and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at
each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Study
characteristics
18
For each study, present characteristics for which data were
extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and
provide the citations.
Risk of bias
within studies
19
Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available,
any outcome-level assessment (see Item 12).
Results of
individual studies
20
For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for
each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention
group and (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals,
ideally with a forest plot.
Synthesis of
results
21
Present results of each meta-analysis done, including
confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Risk of bias
across studies
22
Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across
studies (see Item 15).
Additional
analysis
23
Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity
or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]).
38. 30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
PRISMA: Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-
analysis.
Section/Topic # Checklist Item
Reported
on Page #
DISCUSSION
Summary of
evidence
24
Summarize the main findings including the strength of
evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to
key groups (e.g., health care providers, users, and policy
makers).
Limitations 25
Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of
bias), and at review level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of
identified research, reporting bias).
Conclusions 26
Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of
other evidence, and implications for future research.
FUNDING
Funding 27
Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and
other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the
systematic review.
39. Quality Assessment of Primary Studies
A common practice is to assign a quality score to primary
studies
Preferably based on an explicit checklist usually
The judgment to include or exclude a study must be stated
and justified explicitly
This judgment is mostly based on quantitative criteria, but
involves some subjectivity
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
40. NEWCASTLE - OTTAWA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALE
CASE CONTROL STUDIES
Note: A study can be awarded a maximum of one star for each numbered item within the Selection and Exposure
categories. A maximum of two stars can be given for Comparability.
Selection
1) Is the case definition adequate?
a) yes, with independent validation ¯
b) yes, eg record linkage or based on self reports
c) no description
2) Representativeness of the cases
a) consecutive or obviously representative series of cases ¯
b) potential for selection biases or not stated
3) Selection of Controls
a) community controls ¯
b) hospital controls
c) no description
4) Definition of Controls
a) no history of disease (endpoint)
b) no description of source
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
41. NEWCASTLE - OTTAWA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALE
CASE CONTROL STUDIES
Comparability
1) Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design or analysis
a) study controls for _______________ (Select the most important factor.) ¯
b) study controls for any additional factor ¯ (This criteria could be modified to indicate specific control for a
second important factor.)
Exposure
1) Ascertainment of exposure
a) secure record (eg surgical records) ¯
b) structured interview where blind to case/control status ¯
c) interview not blinded to case/control status
d) written self report or medical record only
e) no description
2) Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls
a) yes ¯
b) no
3) Non-Response rate
a) same rate for both groups ¯
b) non respondents described
c) rate different and no designation
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk
42. “Ugly face” of systematic reviews and
meta-analyses
Can be misleading
Can be misused
30 april 2013Anna Sidorchuk