scholarly journals The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. e1000100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Liberati ◽  
Douglas G. Altman ◽  
Jennifer Tetzlaff ◽  
Cynthia Mulrow ◽  
Peter C. Gøtzsche ◽  
...  
2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (10) ◽  
pp. e1-e34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Liberati ◽  
Douglas G. Altman ◽  
Jennifer Tetzlaff ◽  
Cynthia Mulrow ◽  
Peter C. Gøtzsche ◽  
...  

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.


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>


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

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 336-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Moher ◽  
Alessandro Liberati ◽  
Jennifer Tetzlaff ◽  
Douglas G. Altman

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.


PLoS Medicine ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. e1000097 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Moher ◽  
Alessandro Liberati ◽  
Jennifer Tetzlaff ◽  
Douglas G. Altman ◽  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document