scholarly journals Synthesizing medical evidence: systematic reviews and metaanalyses

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred G. Barker ◽  
Bob S. Carter
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
Medical Evidence ◽  
Internet Resources ◽  
Meta Analyses

Systematic reviews and metaanalyses have become increasingly popular ways of summarizing, and sometimes extending, existing medical knowledge. In this review the authors summarize current methods of performing meta-analyses, including the following: formulating a research question; performing a structured literature search and a search for trials not published in the formal medical literature; summarizing and, where appropriate, combining results from several trials; and reporting and presenting results. Topics such as cumulative and Bayesian metaanalysis and metaregression are also addressed. References to textbooks, articles, and Internet resources are also provided. The goal is to assist readers who wish to perform their own metaanalysis or to interpret critically a published example.

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.

Methodological Aspects of Meta-Analyses Assessing the Effect of Blood Pressure–Lowering Treatment on Clinical Outcomes

Hypertension ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Brunström ◽  
Costas Thomopoulos ◽  
Bo Carlberg ◽  
Reinhold Kreutz ◽  
Giuseppe Mancia
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Blood Pressure Reduction ◽  
Blood Pressure Level ◽  
Blood Pressure Lowering ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Pressure Lowering ◽  
Meta Analyses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often considered the highest level of evidence, with high impact on clinical practice guidelines. The methodological literature on systematic reviews and meta-analyses is extensive and covers most aspects relevant to the design and interpretation of meta-analysis findings in general. Analyzing the effect of blood pressure–lowering on clinical outcomes poses several challenges over and above what is covered in the general literature, including how to combine placebo-controlled trials, target-trials, and comparative studies depending on the research question, how to handle the potential interaction between baseline blood pressure level, common comorbidities, and the estimated treatment effect, and how to consider different magnitudes of blood pressure reduction across trials. This review aims to address the most important methodological considerations, to guide the general reader of systematic reviews and meta-analyses within our field, and to help inform the design of future studies. Furthermore, we highlight issues where published meta-analyses have applied different analytical strategies and discuss pros and cons with different strategies.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

2018 ◽  
Vol 157 (04) ◽  
pp. 392-399
Author(s):  
Sebastian Scheidt ◽  
Patrick Vavken ◽  
Cornelius Jacobs ◽  
Sebastian Koob ◽  
Davide Cucchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Systematic Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractThe rising number of medical publications makes it difficult to keep up-to-date on scientific knowledge. In recent years, reviews in the form of narrative or systematic publications and meta-analyses have increased. These can only be interpreted and evaluated if the reader understands the techniques used. This review article describes the differences between narrative and systematic reviews, together with the characteristics of meta-analysis, and discusses their interpretation. The concept of systematic reviews and meta-analysis includes a systematic literature search and summary, together with an appraisal of the quality of the publications. Systematic reviews are often considered to be original studies due to their structure and ability to reduce bias.

scholarly journals IMPLICAÇÕES DO USO DAS MIDIAS SOCIAIS NA SAÚDE MENTAL DO ADULTO JOVEM

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefane Marinho Moreno ◽  
Ariédna Da Hora Ferreira ◽  
Aline Raquel de Sousa Ibiapina ◽  
Luana Soares Souza ◽  
Mateus Holanda de Moura
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Retrieval System ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Literature Analysis ◽  
Meta Analyses

Introdução: O rápido aumento do uso da internet e consequentemente das mídias socias entre jovens adultos gera preocupações em relação a saúde mental. Pois devido a elevada busca por apoio social online causando influência negativa e a problemática do apego tecnológico implica na redução das habilidades sociais e aumento nos índices de comorbidades psicológicas, como ansiedade, depressão e vícios. Objetivos: Identificar no acervo cientifico possíveis implicações do uso das mídias sociais na saúde mental do adulto jovem. Material e métodos: Trata-se de uma revisão integrativa na literatura, realizada em Novembro de 2021, com busca e seleção nas bases eletrônicas de dados Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE via PubMed®️) com 63 artigos, e na Web of Science com 148 artigos. Seguindo as recomendações do Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) para a seleção dos estudos, contemplou-se uma amostra de 8 artigos que respondem a questão norteadora. Resultados: Evidenciou-se que ser jovem, ter insatisfações financeiras e a formação acadêmica são fatores positivos para o uso problemático da internet. Solteiros do sexo masculino prevalece o vício em videogames. No feminino, em mídias sociais viciantes, associado positivamente para o desenvolvimento de transtornos alimentares e a elevada quantia de contatos nos sites de redes sociais foi encontrada em mulheres que possuíam um Suporte Emocional Percebido (PES) baixo. Adultos que acessam aplicativo de namoro experimentam maior sofrimento psicológico, ansiedade, depressão e baixa-autoestima em relação aos que não são usuários. Em contra partida, a conexão social online diminuiu a ansiedade em relação as condições de isolamento. Conclusão: Os usuários que fazem o uso inadequado da internet, como longos períodos navegando nas mídias socias, podem apresentar sintomas de dependência e estão sujeitos a maiores implicações negativas na saúde mental, comportamental, afetiva e cognitiva. Entretanto, resultados revelam que as mídias sociais também atenuam sintomas psicológicos negativos no caso de isolamento e distanciamento social.

Smart Cities and Accessible Tourism

2021 ◽  
pp. 96-114
Author(s):  
Ana Dias ◽  
Gonçalo Santinha ◽  
Mário Rodrigues ◽  
Alexandra Queirós ◽  
Carlos Rodrigues ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Social Inclusion ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Smart Cities ◽  
Maturity Level ◽  
Sustainable Mobility ◽  
Smart Services ◽  
Territorial Marketing ◽  
Meta Analyses

Promoting accessibility in tourism can impact on other areas, including sustainable mobility, social inclusion, and territorial marketing, since it implies taking the needs of all people into account to access tourism products and services, including those with permanent or temporary disabilities. Smart cities may change the way people experience their surroundings and their ability to provide contextual services is a key aspect to make cities more accessible, comprehensible, and enjoyable. The systematic review reported by the present chapter aimed to identify relevant research studies supported by smart cities infrastructures with an impact on accessible tourism. The literature search and the analysis of the retrieved articles were performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The results identify the most relevant achievements related to accessible tourism in the context of smart cities, including the types of smart services being developed and their maturity level.

scholarly journals What is a clinical review?

2003 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman Vetter
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Clinical Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Hard Evidence ◽  
Meta Analyses

Traditional clinical review articles, also known as updates, differ from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Systematic reviews comprehensively examine the medical literature, seeking to identify and synthesize all relevant information to formulate the best approach to diagnosis or treatment. Meta-analyses, sometimes known as quantitative systematic reviews seek to answer a narrow clinical question, often about the specific treatment of a condition, using rigorous statistical analysis of pooled research studies. Updates review the medical literature almost as carefully as a systematic review but discuss the topic under question more broadly and make reasoned judgements where there is little hard evidence, based upon the expertise of the reviewer. It may not include evidence from foreign language journals or look for unpublished data on a topic, so will tend to be more applicable to the local situation than a systematic review, as it may take into account local shortages of equipment or personnel.

Replication and Repetition in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Medicine

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard Leibovici ◽  
Mical Paul
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Single Measure ◽  
Effect Relationship ◽  
Specific Research Question ◽  
Different Populations ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Expected Outcomes

This chapter discusses systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analysis (MA). SRs are reviews of the “best available,” reliable studies focused on a specific research question. Most often, the studies included in SRs are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have repeated the same treatments in (usually) different situations. MA is a statistical method applied to the results gleaned from an SR that yields a single measure of the expected outcomes of repeated trials, along with an assertion of the confidence we have in that measure. This chapter argues that RCTs are never similar enough to be considered identical replicates, but they are repeated studies, usually on different populations. Comparable RCTs examine one or similar outcomes (based on a hypothesized cause-and-effect relationship), which is why comparable RCTs can be included in SRs and MAs. If SRs and MAs show convincing results, further repeated RCTs would be avoided, thus saving valuable resources. However, evidence to date suggests that this rarely occurs.

scholarly journals Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines

2017 ◽  
Vol 105 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorraine C. Toews
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Search Process ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Accurate Reporting

Objective: Complete, accurate reporting of systematic reviews facilitates assessment of how well reviews have been conducted. The primary objective of this study was to examine compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for literature search reporting and to examine the completeness, bias, and reproducibility of the searches in these reviews from what was reported. The second objective was to examine reporting of the credentials and contributions of those involved in the search process.Methods: A sample of systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in veterinary journals between 2011 and 2015 was obtained by searching PubMed. Reporting in the full text of each review was checked against certain PRISMA checklist items.Results: Over one-third of reviews (37%) did not search the CAB Abstracts database, and 9% of reviews searched only 1 database. Over two-thirds of reviews (65%) did not report any search for grey literature or stated they excluded grey literature. The majority of reviews (95%) did not report a reproducible search strategy.Conclusions: Most reviews had significant deficiencies in reporting the search process that raise questions about how these searches were conducted and ultimately cast serious doubts on the validity and reliability of reviews based on a potentially biased and incomplete body of literature. These deficiencies also highlight the need for veterinary journal editors and publishers to be more rigorous in requiring adherence to PRISMA guidelines and to encourage veterinary researchers to include librarians or information specialists on systematic review teams to improve the quality and reporting of searches.

scholarly journals Guidelines for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 412 ◽  
Author(s):  
María Rubio-Aparicio ◽  
Julio Sánchez-Meca ◽  
Fulgencio Marín-Martínez ◽  
José Antonio López-López
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Applied Research ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Wide Applicability ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Meta Analyses

<p>Meta-analysis is an essential methodology that allows researchers to synthesize the scientific evidence available on a given research question. Due to its wide applicability in most applied research fields, it is really important that meta-analyses be written and reported appropriately. In this paper we propose some guidelines to report the results of a meta-analysis in a scientific journal as Annals of Psychology. Concretely, the structure for reporting a meta-analysis following its different stages is detailed. In addition, some recommendations related to the usual tasks when conducting a meta-analysis are provided. A recent meta-analysis focused on the psychological field is used to illustrate the guidelines proposed. Finally, some concluding remarks are presented. </p>

scholarly journals A Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Sports Physical Therapy: A Review of Reviews

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 1368
Author(s):  
Sung-Hyoun Cho ◽  
In-Soo Shin
Keyword(s):  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Review Of Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

This review of reviews aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of sports physical therapy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This review of reviews included a literature search; in total, 2047 studies published between January 2015 and December 2020 in the top three journals related to sports physical therapy were screened. Among the 125 identified articles, 47 studies on sports physical therapy were included in the analysis (2 systematic reviews and 45 meta-analyses). There were several problems areas, including a lack of reporting for key components of the structured summary (10/47, 21.3%), protocol and registration (18/47, 38.3%), risk of bias in individual studies (28/47, 59.6%), risk of bias across studies (24/47, 51.1%), effect size and variance calculations (5/47, 10.6%), additional analyses (25/47, 53.2%), and funding (10/47, 21.3%). The quality of the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies on sports physical therapy was low to moderate. For better evidence-based practice in sports physical therapy, both authors and readers should examine assumptions in more detail, and report valid and adequate results. The PRISMA guideline should be used more extensively to improve reporting practices in sports physical therapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document