scholarly journals The art of producing quality evidence-based systematic reviews

2002 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 117-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix S F Ram
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Quality Evidence

Evidence-Based Podiatric Medicine

2009 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 260-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Hawke ◽  
Joshua Burns ◽  
Karl B. Landorf
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
User Friendliness ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Due to the exponential increase in the quantity and quality of podiatric medicine–related research during the past decade, podiatric physicians are inundated with an insurmountable volume of research relevant to clinical practice. Systematic reviews can refine this literature by using explicit, rigorous, and reproducible methods to identify, critically appraise, and synthesize the best evidence from all clinical trials to answer clearly defined clinical questions. The Cochrane Collaboration is an international not-for-profit organization created to improve the user-friendliness and accessibility of medical literature mainly through preparing and maintaining systematic reviews of health-care interventions. The Cochrane Library currently contains more than 50 podiatric medicine–relevant systematic reviews summarizing and synthesizing evidence from many hundreds of randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions for foot problems. Although more than 60 countries worldwide have open online access to The Cochrane Library, in the United States, only the state of Wyoming has free access to full-text reviews. In an era demanding an evidence-based approach for every clinical intervention, high-quality systematic reviews streamline podiatric medical literature by reducing the time, cost, and training necessary to establish a solid evidence base for practice. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 99(3): 260–266, 2009)

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.

Evidence-Based Practice: The Cochrane Collaboration, and Occupational Therapy

1998 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 144-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn L. Hayes ◽  
John J. McGrath
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Occupational Therapists ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

This paper describes how occupational therapists can become involved in the Cochrane Collaboration — a well-developed tool for facilitating the involvement of health professionals and lay people in evidence-based practice. The Cochrane Collaboration is a growing international project intended to systematically locate, conduct systematic reviews (including metaanalyses) of, and disseminate information on all available randomised controlled trials of interventions in any area of health. In particular, occupational therapists can use the Cochrane Collaboration to become better informed about best practice and evaluate research in their areas of interest, and learn skills related to conducting randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

scholarly journals TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN EPISTEMIC AND MORAL VALUES IN EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donal Khosrowi
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Epistemic Values ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Political Values ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract:Proponents of evidence-based policy (EBP) call for public policy to be informed by high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials. This methodological preference aims to promote several epistemic values, e.g. rigour, unbiasedness, precision, and the ability to obtain causal conclusions. I argue that there is a trade-off between these epistemic values and several non-epistemic, moral and political values. This is because the evidence afforded by standard EBP methods is differentially useful for pursuing different moral and political values. I expand on how this challenges ideals of value-freedom and -neutrality in EBP, and offer suggestions for how EBP methodology might be revised.

scholarly journals Comparative Effectiveness Research: Using Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses to Synthesize Empirical Evidence

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria C. Katapodi ◽  
Laurel L. Northouse
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Research Studies

The increased demand for evidence-based health care practices calls for comparative effectiveness research (CER), namely the generation and synthesis of research evidence to compare the benefits and harms of alternative methods of care. A significant contribution of CER is the systematic identification and synthesis of available research studies on a specific topic. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of methodological issues pertaining to systematic reviews and meta-analyses to be used by investigators with the purpose of conducting CER. A systematic review or meta-analysis is guided by a research protocol, which includes (a) the research question, (b) inclusion and exclusion criteria with respect to the target population and studies, © guidelines for obtaining relevant studies, (d) methods for data extraction and coding, (e) methods for data synthesis, and (f ) guidelines for reporting results and assessing for bias. This article presents an algorithm for generating evidence-based knowledge by systematically identifying, retrieving, and synthesizing large bodies of research studies. Recommendations for evaluating the strength of evidence, interpreting findings, and discussing clinical applicability are offered.

scholarly journals National or population level interventions addressing the social determinants of mental health – an umbrella review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Neha Shah ◽  
Ian F. Walker ◽  
Yannish Naik ◽  
Selina Rajan ◽  
Kate O’Hagan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Social Determinants ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Mental Health Outcomes ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
The Social ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Background Social circumstances in which people live and work impact the population’s mental health. We aimed to synthesise evidence identifying effective interventions and policies that influence the social determinants of mental health at national or scaled population level. We searched five databases (Cochrane Library, Global Health, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO) between Jan 1st 2000 and July 23rd 2019 to identify systematic reviews of population-level interventions or policies addressing a recognised social determinant of mental health and collected mental health outcomes. There were no restrictions on country, sub-population or age. A narrative overview of results is provided. Quality assessment was conducted using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019140198). Results We identified 20 reviews for inclusion. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality. Primary studies were mostly observational and from higher income settings. Higher quality evidence indicates more generous welfare benefits may reduce socioeconomic inequalities in mental health outcomes. Lower quality evidence suggests unemployment insurance, warm housing interventions, neighbourhood renewal, paid parental leave, gender equality policies, community-based parenting programmes, and less restrictive migration policies are associated with improved mental health outcomes. Low quality evidence suggests restriction of access to lethal means and multi-component suicide prevention programmes are associated with reduced suicide risk. Conclusion This umbrella review has identified a small and overall low-quality evidence base for population level interventions addressing the social determinants of mental health. There are significant gaps in the evidence base for key policy areas, which limit ability of national policymakers to understand how to effectively improve population mental health.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document