scholarly journals Neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer: Evidence-based medicine? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco D’Angelo ◽  
Laura Antolino ◽  
Alessio Farcomeni ◽  
Dario Sirimarco ◽  
Andrea Kazemi Nava ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Based Medicine

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 6. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies

2008 ◽  
Vol 5;12 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 819-850
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Confounding Bias ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Observational studies provide an important source of information when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot or should not be undertaken, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted with special attention to bias. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stresses the examination of evidence from clinical research and describes it as a shift in medical paradigm, in contrast to intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiologic rationale. While the importance of randomized trials has been created by the concept of the hierarchy of evidence in guiding therapy, much of the medical research is observational. The reporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough with insufficient quality and poor reporting, which hampers the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the study and the generalizability of the mixed results. Thus, in recent years, progress and innovations in health care are measured by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, “the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, clinical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic.” Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggests that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to integrate the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the review methods is important, the expertise in the subject matter and technical components is also crucial. Even though, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, specifically of RCTs, have exploded, the quality of the systematic reviews is highly variable and consequently, the opinions reached of the same studies are quite divergent. Numerous deficiencies have been described in methodologic assessment of the quality of the individual articles. Consequently, observational studies can provide an important complementary source of information, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted in the context of confounding bias to which they are prone. Appropriate systematic reviews of observational studies, in conjunction with RCTs, may provide the basis for elimination of a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence. Steps in conducting systematic reviews of observational studies include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. MOOSE, or Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, a proposal for reporting contains specifications including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the MOOSE checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analysis for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision-makers. This manuscript describes systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Authors frequently utilize RCTs and observational studies in one systematic review; thus, they should also follow the reporting standards of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement, which also provides a checklist. A combined approach of QUOROM and MOOSE will improve reporting of systematic reviews and lead to progress and innovations in health care. Key words: Observational studies, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, metaanalysis, randomized trials, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, confounding bias, QUOROM, MOOSE

scholarly journals PICO and Risk Of bias Navigator for Evidence Based Medicine

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomohide Yamada ◽  
Yoshinobu Kondo ◽  
Ryo Momosaki
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Clinical Skills ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Based Medicine

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) involves determining treatment that matches the needs of each patient by integrating the best and latest available “scientific evidence” and “clinical skills”. Systematic review and meta-analysis refer to the process of searching databases and performing statistical analysis to integrate the results of multiple independent studies conducted in the past. The results obtained provide the highest quality evidence, which has become the foundation of various clinical guidelines. Systematic review and meta-analysis are conducted in the following sequence: 1) formulation of a hypothesis, 2) searching databases for articles, 3) selection of research articles, 4) evaluation of bias for each study, 5) integration of the results, 6) verification of bias, and 7) evaluation of the quality of the meta-analysis. Especially regarding 2) article searches and 3) article selection, it is usual for two or more researchers to independently conduct a comprehensive search of databases and extract all the articles that meet the eligibility criteria. Generally, each researcher must evaluate thousands of research articles one by one, making the whole process very time-consuming. In addition, articles may be missed since the search is done manually, and the results tend to be arbitrary. Moreover, updating the information requires a lot of time and effort. Generally, it takes one to two years to complete a single systematic review and meta-analysis. As a result, many reviews are obsolete or missing. Therefore, development of software that could contribute to labor saving and automation of systematic review has been advocated. PICORON-EBM aims to shorten the time required for assessment of PICO and Risk of Bias by natural language processing. Strengths: 1. Quick and Easy operation. 2. You can add and delete any keywords to your area of interest. URL: http://www.picoron.com/

KOLABORASI PUSTAKAWAN DALAM PENGAMBILAN KEPUTUSAN KLINIS BERBASIS BUKTI TERKINI (EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE ): STUDI KASUS DI FAKULTAS KEDOKTERAN, KESEHATAN MASYARAKAT DAN KEPERAWATAN UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-75
Author(s):  
Sukirno Sukirno
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Clinical Queries ◽  
Based Medicine

Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) merupakan pemanfaatan bukti ilmiah berdasarkan penelitian klinis mutakhir yang sahih dalam tatalaksana proses penyembuhan penyakit. Salah satu syarat utama untuk memfasilitasi pengambilan keputusan klinik yang evidence-based, adalah dengan menyediakan bukti-bukti ilmiah yang relevan. Tipe kajian  diutamakan yang berupa hasil review sistematik, meta-analisis, dan randomised controlled trial (RCT). Salah satu dari lima langkah dalam evidence based medicine yaitu yaitu menelusur  bukti  dari sumber database hasil penelitian yang memuat bukti-bukti ilmiah. PubMed Clinical Queries dan The Cochrane Library merupakan database berisi hasil riset sekunder (systematic-review/meta-analysis) yang mensintesis hasil riset primer. Kolaborasi pustakawan dalam pengambilan keputusan klinis yaitu dengan  memberikan pelatihan  atau menelusur artikel hasil penelitian yang akan digunakan dalam pengambilan klinis dari database yang memuat bukti ilmiah.

scholarly journals PICO and Risk Of bias Navigator for Evidence Based Medicine

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomohide Yamada ◽  
Yoshinobu Kondo ◽  
Ryo Momosaki
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Clinical Skills ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Based Medicine

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) involves determining treatment that matches the needs of each patient by integrating the best and latest available “scientific evidence” and “clinical skills”. Systematic review and meta-analysis refer to the process of searching databases and performing statistical analysis to integrate the results of multiple independent studies conducted in the past. The results obtained provide the highest quality evidence, which has become the foundation of various clinical guidelines. Systematic review and meta-analysis are conducted in the following sequence: 1) formulation of a hypothesis, 2) searching databases for articles, 3) selection of research articles, 4) evaluation of bias for each study, 5) integration of the results, 6) verification of bias, and 7) evaluation of the quality of the meta-analysis. Especially regarding 2) article searches and 3) article selection, it is usual for two or more researchers to independently conduct a comprehensive search of databases and extract all the articles that meet the eligibility criteria. Generally, each researcher must evaluate thousands of research articles one by one, making the whole process very time-consuming. In addition, articles may be missed since the search is done manually, and the results tend to be arbitrary. Moreover, updating the information requires a lot of time and effort. Generally, it takes one to two years to complete a single systematic review and meta-analysis. As a result, many reviews are obsolete or missing. Therefore, development of software that could contribute to labor saving and automation of systematic review has been advocated. PICORON-EBM aims to shorten the time required for assessment of PICO and Risk of Bias by natural language processing. Strengths: 1. Quick and Easy operation. 2. You can add and delete any keywords to your area of interest. URL: http://www.picoron.com/

scholarly journals PICO and Risk Of bias Navigator for Evidence Based Medicine

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomohide Yamada ◽  
Yoshinobu Kondo ◽  
Ryo Momosaki
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Clinical Skills ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
Based Medicine

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) involves determining treatment that matches the needs of each patient by integrating the best and latest available “scientific evidence” and “clinical skills”. Systematic review and meta-analysis refer to the process of searching databases and performing statistical analysis to integrate the results of multiple independent studies conducted in the past. The results obtained provide the highest quality evidence, which has become the foundation of various clinical guidelines. Systematic review and meta-analysis are conducted in the following sequence: 1) formulation of a hypothesis, 2) searching databases for articles, 3) selection of research articles, 4) evaluation of bias for each study, 5) integration of the results, 6) verification of bias, and 7) evaluation of the quality of the meta-analysis. Especially regarding 2) article searches and 3) article selection, it is usual for two or more researchers to independently conduct a comprehensive search of databases and extract all the articles that meet the eligibility criteria. Generally, each researcher must evaluate thousands of research articles one by one, making the whole process very time-consuming. In addition, articles may be missed since the search is done manually, and the results tend to be arbitrary. Moreover, updating the information requires a lot of time and effort. Generally, it takes one to two years to complete a single systematic review and meta-analysis. As a result, many reviews are obsolete or missing. Therefore, development of software that could contribute to labor saving and automation of systematic review has been advocated. PICORON-EBM aims to shorten the time required for assessment of PICO and Risk of Bias by natural language processing. Strengths: 1. Quick and Easy operation. 2. You can add and delete any keywords to your area of interest. URL: http://www.picoron.com/

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document