Reporting guidelines on how to write a complete and transparent abstract for overviews of systematic reviews of health care interventions

2019 ◽  
Vol 106 ◽  
pp. 70-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos I. Bougioukas ◽  
Emmanouil Bouras ◽  
Fani Apostolidou-Kiouti ◽  
Stamatia Kokkali ◽  
Malamatenia Arvanitidou ◽  
...  
PLoS Medicine ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. e1000100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Liberati ◽  
Douglas G. Altman ◽  
Jennifer Tetzlaff ◽  
Cynthia Mulrow ◽  
Peter C. Gøtzsche ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen HG Handoll ◽  
Rajan Madhok ◽  
Tracey E Howe

This paper describes the work of the Cochrane Collaboration in producing systematic reviews of health care interventions. It examines the present and potential relevance of Cochrane reviews to clinicians providing hand therapy and gives some pointers for those who wish to take a more active role in evaluating the evidence for their clinical practice.


Author(s):  
Meera Viswanathan ◽  
Carrie D. Patnode ◽  
Nancy D. Berkman ◽  
Eric B. Bass ◽  
Stephanie Chang ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 671-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Petticrew ◽  
Fujian Song ◽  
Paul Wilson ◽  
Kath Wright

Objectives: Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) (http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/) at the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination provides a unique international resource of structured summaries of quality-assessed reviews of health care interventions. These reviews have been identified from searches of electronic databases and by hand-searching journals. This paper describes and summarizes the DARE database, including the topic areas covered and the review methods used.Methods: The first 480 structured abstracts on the DARE database were summarized. Data were extracted from each database field and coded for analysis.Results: Most of the systematic reviews investigated the effectiveness of treatments: 54% investigated the effectiveness of medical therapies, and 10% assessed surgical interventions. Around two-thirds used meta-analytic methods to combine primary studies. The quality of the reviews was variable, with just over half of the reviews (52%, n = 251) having systematically assessed the validity of the included primary studies. Narrative reviews were more likely than meta-analyses to reach negative conclusions (42% vs. 25%, p = .0001). The 21 reviews that reported drug company funding were more likely to reach positive conclusions (81% vs. 66%, p = .15).Conclusion: The DARE database is a valuable source of quality-assessed systematic reviews, and is free and easily accessible. It provides a valuable online resource to help in filtering out poorer quality reviews when assessing the effectiveness of health technologies.


2010 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 383-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanitha A. Jagannath ◽  
Joseph L. Mathew ◽  
G. V. Asokan ◽  
Zbys Fedorowicz

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inger Natvig Norderhaug

<p>En god helsetjeneste forutsetter god kunnskap som grunnlag for de valg som gjøres. Systematiske oversikter som sammenfatter tilgjengelig forskningsbasert kunnskap er en viktig del av beslutningsgrunnlaget, enten det er snakk om effektene av tiltak, hvorfor sykdom oppstår, diagnostikk, prognose, eller hvordan sykdom oppleves for dem som rammes.</p><p>Systematiske oversikter er blitt en vel anerkjent kilde for kunnskap om effekt av helsetiltak, med bred internasjonal enighet om metodene som bør benyttes ved utvikling av slike oversikter. Når det gjelder systematiske oversikter for å sammenfatte resultater fra epidemiologisk forskning på årsaksspørsmål er erfaringene langt mindre.</p><p>Samtidig som systematiske oversikter over epidemiologiske studier i større grad bør inngå i beslutningsprosesser, er det et betydelig behov for metodeutvikling. Dette gjelder særlig kriterier for vurdering av kvalitet på epidemiologiske studier, metoder for sammenfatning av resultater i metaanalyser og kriterier for å gradere tillit til de endelige estimatene. Publikasjonsskjevheter er en utfordring for all forskning, og det er behov for initiativ for å sikre bedre rapportering av funn fra epidemiologiske studier, blant annet publisering av studieprotokoller.</p><p>Norderhaug IN. <strong>Systematic reviews of epidemiological research</strong>. <em>Nor J Epidemiol</em> 2013; <strong>23</strong> (2): 125-130.</p><p><strong>ENGLISH SUMMARY</strong></p><p>In health care, good knowledge is key to sound decision making. Good management of knowledge can be achieved through systematic reviews for various questions including the effects of health care interventions, causes of disease, how to best diagnose diseases, prognosis, as well as people’s experiences from living with disease.</p><p>Systematic reviews are well recognized and valued resources to inform decisions regarding health care interventions. Furthermore there is broad international consensus on methods for conducting systematic reviews on the effects of health care interventions. Although the need for systematic reviews is recognized also for epidemiological questions, such as the causes of disease, the level of experience in this area is far less than for systematic reviews on the effects of interventions.</p><p>Thus, alongside the need for better integration of systematic reviews in epidemiology into health care decision making processes, methodological developments are needed, particularly on how to assess the quality of epidemiological studies, methods for combining the results in meta-analyses, and criteria for grading our confidence in the final estimates.</p><p>Publication bias is a problem in all research, and initiatives are needed to improve planning and reporting of epidemiological studies, such as publication of study protocols.</p>


2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (53) ◽  
pp. 1-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie JC Taylor ◽  
Hilary Pinnock ◽  
Eleni Epiphaniou ◽  
Gemma Pearce ◽  
Hannah L Parke ◽  
...  

BackgroundDespite robust evidence concerning self-management for some long-term conditions (LTCs), others lack research explicitly on self-management and, consequently, some patient groups may be overlooked.AimTo undertake a rapid, systematic overview of the evidence on self-management support for LTCs to inform health-care commissioners and providers about what works, for whom, and in what contexts.MethodsSelf-management is ‘the tasks . . . individuals must undertake to live with one or more chronic conditions . . . [including] . . . having the confidence to deal with medical management, role management and emotional management of their conditions’. We convened an expert workshop and identified characteristics of LTCs potentially of relevance to self-management and 14 diverse exemplar LTCs (stroke, asthma, type 2 diabetes mellitus, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, dementia, epilepsy, hypertension, inflammatory arthropathies, irritable bowel syndrome, low back pain, progressive neurological disorders and type 1 diabetes mellitus). For each LTC we conducted systematic overviews of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of self-management support interventions (‘quantitative meta-reviews’); and systematic overviews of systematic reviews of qualitative studies of patients’ experiences relating to self-management (‘qualitative meta-reviews’). We also conducted an original systematic review of implementation studies of self-management support in the LTCs. We synthesised all our data considering the different characteristics of LTCs. In parallel, we developed a taxonomy of the potential components of self-management support.ResultsWe included 30 qualitative systematic reviews (including 515 unique studies), 102 quantitative systematic reviews (including 969 RCTs), and 61 studies in the implementation systematic review. Effective self-management support interventions are multifaceted, should be tailored to the individual, their culture and beliefs, a specific LTC and position on the disease trajectory, and underpinned by a collaborative/communicative relationship between the patient and health-care professional (HCP) within the context of a health-care organisation that actively promotes self-management. Self-management support is a complex intervention and although many components were described and trialled in the studies no single component stood out as more important than any other. Core components include (1) provision of education about the LTC, recognising the importance of understanding patients’ pre-existing knowledge and beliefs about their LTC; (2) psychological strategies to support adjustment to life with a LTC; (3) strategies specifically to support adherence to treatments; (4) practical support tailored to the specific LTC, including support around activities of daily living for disabling conditions, action plans in conditions subject to marked exacerbations, intensive disease-specific training to enable self-management of specific clinical tasks; and (5) social support as appropriate. Implementation requires a whole-systems approach which intervenes at the level of the patient, the HCP and the organisation. The health-care organisation is responsible for providing the means (both training and time/material resources) to enable HCPs to implement, and patients to benefit from, self-management support, regularly evaluating self-management processes and clinical outcomes. More widely there is a societal need to address public understanding of LTCs. The lack of public story for many conditions impacted on patient help-seeking behaviour and public perceptions of need.ConclusionsSupporting self-management is inseparable from the high-quality care for LTCs. Commissioners and health-care providers should promote a culture of actively supporting self-management as a normal, expected, monitored and rewarded aspect of care. Further research is needed to understand how health service managers and staff can achieve this culture change in their health-care organisations.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002898.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.


2015 ◽  
Vol 162 (11) ◽  
pp. 777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Hutton ◽  
Georgia Salanti ◽  
Deborah M. Caldwell ◽  
Anna Chaimani ◽  
Christopher H. Schmid ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (10) ◽  
pp. e1-e34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Liberati ◽  
Douglas G. Altman ◽  
Jennifer Tetzlaff ◽  
Cynthia Mulrow ◽  
Peter C. Gøtzsche ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document