How to Systematically Review the Medical Literature

1996 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard M. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Rigorous Evaluation

In contrast to traditional narrative reviews, systematic reviews are true hypothesis-driven research. Meta-analysis is a form of systematic review in which studies are selected and combined by use of a predefined protocol to reduce bias and subjectivity. A sensitivity analysis shows how results vary through the use of different assumptions, tests, and criteria. The most valid synthesis of information occurs when published and unpublished materials are subjected to the same rigorous evaluation and when results are calculated with and without unpublished sources of data. A good systematic review captures the reader's attention through a skillful blend of numbers and narrative and qualifies for publication as original research in a peer-reviewed journal. Otolaryngologists have published systematic reviews of varying quality since 1990. This article should help improve the quality and validity Of future efforts.

Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (17) ◽  
pp. 3140-3146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Crowther ◽  
Wendy Lim ◽  
Mark A. Crowther
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
Analysis Methodology ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are being increasingly used to summarize medical literature and identify areas in which research is needed. Systematic reviews limit bias with the use of a reproducible scientific process to search the literature and evaluate the quality of the individual studies. If possible the results are statistically combined into a meta-analysis in which the data are weighted and pooled to produce an estimate of effect. This article aims to provide the reader with a practical overview of systematic review and meta-analysis methodology, with a focus on the process of performing a review and the related issues at each step.

scholarly journals Systematic review protocol to assess artificial intelligence diagnostic accuracy performance in detecting acute ischaemic stroke and large-vessel occlusions on CT and MR medical imaging

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e043665
Author(s):  
Srinivasa Rao Kundeti ◽  
Manikanda Krishnan Vaidyanathan ◽  
Bharath Shivashankar ◽  
Sankar Prasad Gorthi
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Acute Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Large Vessel ◽  
Sufficient Data

IntroductionThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) to support the diagnosis of acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) could improve patient outcomes and facilitate accurate tissue and vessel assessment. However, the evidence in published AI studies is inadequate and difficult to interpret which reduces the accountability of the diagnostic results in clinical settings. This study protocol describes a rigorous systematic review of the accuracy of AI in the diagnosis of AIS and detection of large-vessel occlusions (LVOs).Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of AI models for diagnosing AIS and detecting LVOs. We will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols guidelines. Literature searches will be conducted in eight databases. For data screening and extraction, two reviewers will use a modified Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies checklist. We will assess the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies guidelines. We will conduct a meta-analysis if sufficient data are available. We will use hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves to estimate the summary operating points, including the pooled sensitivity and specificity, with 95% CIs, if pooling is appropriate. Furthermore, if sufficient data are available, we will use Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations profiler software to summarise the main findings of the systematic review, as a summary of results.Ethics and disseminationThere are no ethical considerations associated with this study protocol, as the systematic review focuses on the examination of secondary data. The systematic review results will be used to report on the accuracy, completeness and standard procedures of the included studies. We will disseminate our findings by publishing our analysis in a peer-reviewed journal and, if required, we will communicate with the stakeholders of the studies and bibliographic databases.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020179652.

scholarly journals Effects of low back pain on balance performance in elderly people: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Le Ge ◽  
Chuhuai Wang ◽  
Haohan Zhou ◽  
Qiuhua Yu ◽  
Xin Li
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Elderly People ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Centre Of Pressure ◽  
Balance Performance

Abstract Background Research suggests that individuals with low back pain (LBP) may have poorer motor control compared to their healthy counterparts. However, the sample population of almost 90% of related articles are young and middle-aged people. There is still a lack of a systematic review about the balance performance of elderly people with low back pain. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the effects of LBP on balance performance in elderly people. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis included a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for full-text articles published before January 2020. We included the articles that 1) investigated the elderly people with LBP; 2) assessed balance performance with any quantifiable clinical assessment or measurement tool and during static or dynamic activity; 3) were original research. Two independent reviewers screened the relevant articles, and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Results Thirteen case-control studies comparing balance performance parameters between LBP and healthy subjects were included. The experimental group (LBP group) was associated with significantly larger area of centre of pressure movement (P < 0.001), higher velocity of centre of pressure sway in the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions (P = 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively), longer path length in the anteroposterior direction (P < 0.001), slower walking speed (P = 0.05), and longer timed up and go test time (P = 0.004) than the control group. Conclusion The results showed that balance performance was impaired in elderly people with LBP. We should pay more attention to the balance control of elderly people with LBP.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol examining the clinical characteristics and epidemiological features of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemond Qian-Xiu Tan ◽  
Wai Tak Victor Li ◽  
Wing-Zi Shum ◽  
Sheung Chit Chu ◽  
Hang-Long Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Protocol

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused recurring and major outbreaks in multiple human populations around the world. The plethora of clinical presentations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been described extensively, of which olfactory dysfunction (OD) was established as an important and common extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on peer-reviewed articles which described clinical data of OD in COVID-19 patients. Methods This research protocol has been prospectively registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020196202). CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed, as well as Chinese medical databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and WANFANG, will be searched using keywords including ‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus disease’, ‘2019-nCoV’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘novel coronavirus’, ‘anosmia’, ‘hyposmia’, ‘loss of smell’, and ‘olfactory dysfunction’. Systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles will be screened according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to extract studies that include new clinical data investigating the effect of COVID-19 on olfactory dysfunction. Included articles will be reviewed in full; data including patient demographics, clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD, methods of olfactory assessment and relevant clinical outcomes will be extracted. Statistical analyses will be performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will aim to collate and synthesise all available clinical evidence regarding COVID-19-related OD as an important neurosensory dysfunction of COVID-19 infection. A comprehensive search strategy and screening process will be conducted to incorporate broad clinical data for robust statistical analyses and representation. The outcome of the systematic review and meta-analysis will aim to improve our understanding of the symptomatology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD and identify knowledge gaps in its disease process, which will guide future research in this specific neurosensory defect. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196202.

scholarly journals Brief Psychotherapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Nieuwsma ◽  
Ranak B. Trivedi ◽  
Jennifer McDuffie ◽  
Ian Kronish ◽  
Dinesh Benjamin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Brief Psychotherapy ◽  
Problem Solving Therapy

Objective: Because evidence-based psychotherapies of 12 to 20 sessions can be perceived as too lengthy and time intensive for the treatment of depression in primary care, a number of studies have examined abbreviated psychotherapy protocols. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of brief psychotherapy (i.e., < 8 sessions) for depression. Methods: We used combined literature searches in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and an Internet-accessible database of clinical trials of psychotherapy to conduct two systematic searches: one for existing systematic reviews and another for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Included studies examined evidence-based psychotherapy(s) of eight or fewer sessions, focused on adults with depression, contained an acceptable control condition, were published in English, and used validated measures of depressive symptoms. Results: We retained 2 systematic reviews and 15 RCTs evaluating cognitive behavioral therapy, problem-solving therapy, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. The systematic reviews found brief psychotherapies to be more efficacious than control, with effect sizes ranging from −0.33 to −0.25. Our meta-analysis found six to eight sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy to be more efficacious than control (ES −0.42, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.10, I2 = 56%). A sensitivity analysis controlled for statistical heterogeneity but showed smaller treatment effects (ES −0.24, 95% CI −0.42 to −0.06, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Depression can be efficaciously treated with six to eight sessions of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioral therapy and problem-solving therapy. Access to non-pharmacologic treatments for depression could be improved by training healthcare providers to deliver brief psychotherapies.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Revascularisation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

Systematic Reviews are Rarely Used to Inform Study Design - a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgitte Nørgaard ◽  
Eva Draborg ◽  
Jane Andreasen ◽  
Carsten Bogh Juhl ◽  
Jennifer Yost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document