"patient self-report items" systematic review

What are the characteristics of systematic reviews?

Systematic reviews adhere to a strict scientific design based on explicit, pre-specified, and reproducible methods. Because of this, when carried out well, they provide reliable estimates about the effects of interventions so that conclusions are defensible.

Why do we need systematic reviews of clinical trials?

Moreover, in areas where a number of large-scale trials have had similar results, a systematic review that includes meta-analysis of the data can help researchers to find a population estimate for the overall effect of the intervention.

Can I conduct a systematic review without pooled data?

Do not be discouraged if the data cannot be analyzed using meta-analytic methods, as the systematic review can still be highly relevant and useful without pooled data. By following these steps, you should be able to develop a plan and assemble a strong team to move your planned review forward. Notes

How do I conduct a systematic review literature search?

The best way to accomplish this is to have help from a librarian with expertise in the area of systematic reviews in defining the search terms, search strategies, and databases to be used. The rule of thumb for a systematic review literature search is that more than 2 databases should be used.

What is systematic review?

“Systematic review” is the overarching term for studies that collate available evidence related to a directed clinical question.2 ,4A meta-analysis is a review in which statistical methods are employed to collate the numeric data from the primary studies. For various reasons, not all systematic reviews can combine the available data to generate summary numeric results; however, all systematic reviews shouldemploy stringent methods to summarize the available research.

What questions should be asked in a systematic review?

The question should state the patient group of interest, the intervention being investigated, the control or comparator group, and the outcomes of interest.1,2For example, if you were interested in conducting a systematic review of the effectiveness of new agents (e.g., gliptins) in the treatment of diabetes mellitus, you would need to clearly define your target population and specify whether you are considering studies that compare gliptins with other antidiabetic agents or studies that compare gliptins just with placebo. If you neglect to define each of these parameters a priori, you will have problems in determining which studies should be included and which should be excluded from your systematic review. Table 1provides an example of how to define the question.

What does PRISMA mean in a review?

PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

How to determine quality of included studies?

Determination of the quality of included studies should be based on whether the included studies have minimized bias in their study design (internal validity). The Cochrane Collaboration has moved away from using the term “quality” and now uses “bias” instead.3One reason for this shift is that focusing on bias allows you to concentrate on the quality of the underlying research, not just the reportingof that research. Meta-epidemiologic methods have been used to study the biases associated with study characteristics.7This type of work has led researchers to focus bias assessment on areas such as allocation concealment, randomization, blinding, and incompleteness of data and reporting. The Cochrane Collaboration has developed a tool to record whether these aspects of the study were done appropriately, not simply whether they were reported (as is commonly seen with checklist approaches to quality assessment).3A full description of the use and applicability of these tools is beyond the scope of this article; for more detailed instructions, readers are referred to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions(see Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies).3The risk-of-bias tool is deemed more difficult and time-consuming to complete than previous methods of assessing bias; however, it is also viewed as providing more valuable information.8The main area of difficulty for researchers is how to incorporate risk-of-bias information into the data analysis. The Cochrane Collaboration is currently working on advanced instructions to assist in this domain.8

How many independent reviewers are needed for a standardized selection?

Use at least 2 independent reviewers. Have the reviewers use the inclusion and exclusion criteria as the basis for their selections. Specify a method to resolve discrepancies (e.g., consensus, third reviewer).

How many reviewers are required to check eligibility of potential studies?

At this stage, the eligibility of potential studies (based on the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria) must be checked independently by at least 2 researchers. The lists of included studies prepared by the 2 reviewers are then compared and disagreements resolved, either through discussion or the involvement of a third researcher. The numbers of studies searched and included, and the reasons for study exclusion, should be recorded and presented as a flow diagram in the final manuscript.6Each and every potentially relevant study found through the search should be accounted for in this diagram.

Which type of systematic review offers the highest level of evidence?

In the hierarchy of evidence, systematic reviews of randomized trials offer the highest level of evidence.1The strongest inferences can be drawn if the systematic review is well conducted and includes methodologically sound RCTs with consistent results. In making treatment decisions, the highest quality of evidence should be sought, but well-conducted systematic reviews may not always be available.

What is a Cochrane review?

Cochrane reviews are systematic reviews undertaken by members of the Cochrane Collaboration which is an international not-for-profit organization that aims to help people to make well-informed decisions about healthcare by preparing, maintaining, and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions.

What is the primary health care field?

Cochrane Primary Health Care Field is a systematic review of primary healthcare research on prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and diagnostic test accuracy. The overall aim and mission of the Primary Health Care Field is to promote the quality, quantity, dissemination, accessibility, applicability, and impact of Cochrane systematic reviews relevant to people who work in primary care and to ensure proper representation in the interests of primary care clinicians and consumers in Cochrane reviews and review groups, and in other entities. This field would serve to coordinate and promote the mission of the Cochrane Collaboration within the primary healthcare disciplines, as well as ensuring that primary care perspectives are adequately represented within the Collaboration.[10]

What is evidence based healthcare?

Evidence-based healthcare is the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. Green denotes, “Using evidence from reliable research, to inform healthcare decisions, has the potential to ensure best practice and reduce variations in healthcare delivery.” However, incorporating research into practice is time consuming, and so we need methods of facilitating easy access to evidence for busy clinicians.[1] Ganeshkumar et al. mentioned that nearly half of the private practitioners in India were consulting more than 4 h per day in a locality,[2] which explains the difficulty of them in spending time in searching evidence during consultation. Ideally, clinical decision making ought to be based on the latest evidence available. However, to keep abreast with the continuously increasing number of publications in health research, a primary healthcare professional would need to read an insurmountable number of articles every day, covered in more than 13 million references and over 4800 biomedical and health journals in Medline alone. With the view to address this challenge, the systematic review method was developed. Systematic reviews aim to inform and facilitate this process through research synthesis of multiple studies, enabling increased and efficient access to evidence.[1,3,4]

What is the difference between meta analysis and systematic review?

Therefore, “systematic review” will refer to the entire process of collecting, reviewing, and presenting all available evidence, while the term “meta-analysis” will refer to the statistical technique involved in extracting and combining data to produce a summary result. [15]

What is systematic review?

A systematic review is a summary of the medical literature that uses explicit and reproducible methods to systematically search, critically appraise, and synthesize on a specific issue. It synthesizes the results of multiple primary studies related to each other by using strategies that reduce biases and random errors.[7] To this end, systematic reviews may or may not include a statistical synthesis called meta-analysis, depending on whether the studies are similar enough so that combining their results is meaningful.[8] Systematic reviews are often called overviews.

What are the two approaches to evaluating all the available evidence on an issue?

The two approaches of evaluating all the available evidence on an issue i.e., systematic reviews and meta-analysis,

Why are systematic reviews important?

Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research and some healthcare journals are moving in this direction. [5]