scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis in Evidence-based Orthodontics: An Appraisal and Methodology

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 220-232
Author(s):  
Priti Mulimani
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based

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 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 The Evidence-Based Practice Silent Enemy: Retracted Articles and Their Use in Systematic Reviews

Healthcare ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 465
Author(s):  
Ivan Herrera-Peco ◽  
Azucena Santillán-García ◽  
José María Morán ◽  
Jessica Marian Goodman-Casanova ◽  
Daniel Cuesta-Lozano
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Nursing Practice ◽  
Current Issue ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Adherence To Treatment ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Evidence Based Nursing ◽  
Improve Health

Today, evidence-based nursing practice strives to improve health care, ensure adherence to treatment, improve health outcomes, and guarantee patient safety. The main scientific documents that nurses should consult, to obtain the best possible evidence, are systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, this type of scientific document has a major issue if it uses retracted articles that could directly affect the consistency of the results shown in the reviews. The aim of this commentary is to present the current issue represented by the use of retracted articles in meta-analyses of systematic reviews and how researchers could detect them, through the use of different instruments, avoiding them, and providing a reliable SR or meta-analysis that could be useful for day-to-day clinical and research activities.

scholarly journals A bibliometric analysis of systematic review/meta-analysis on dry eye disease

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yonggang Zhang ◽  
An Ping ◽  
Shuyuan Lyu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dry Eye ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Core Collection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dry Eye Disease ◽  
Eye Disease ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background There was no citation analysis about systematic review/meta-analysis published on dry eye disease (DED). The objective of this study was to identify the citations of systematic review/meta-analysis published on DED and to provide information on the achievement and development of evidence-based dry eye research.Methods Web of Knowledge Core Collection was searched for all systematic review/meta-analysis relevant to DED. The number of citations, authorship, year, journal, country, and institution were analyzed for each study.Results A total of 29 systematic reviews/meta-analyses on DED published between 2009 and 2017 were included. The number of citations ranged from 0 to 63, with a medium of 8 citations. These systematic reviews/meta-analyses were from 10 countries, and 15 of them were from China. They were published in 21 journals. Ocular Surface published most studies (n =4), followed by International Journal of Ophthalmology (n =3). The journal with highest impact factor was Nutrition Reviews (IF=5.291 in 2016).Conclusion The citations of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on DED are still low. Further systematic reviews/meta-analyses are needed for providing more evidence for DED.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 6. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies

2008 ◽  
Vol 5;12 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 819-850
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Confounding Bias ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Observational studies provide an important source of information when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot or should not be undertaken, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted with special attention to bias. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stresses the examination of evidence from clinical research and describes it as a shift in medical paradigm, in contrast to intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiologic rationale. While the importance of randomized trials has been created by the concept of the hierarchy of evidence in guiding therapy, much of the medical research is observational. The reporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough with insufficient quality and poor reporting, which hampers the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the study and the generalizability of the mixed results. Thus, in recent years, progress and innovations in health care are measured by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, “the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, clinical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic.” Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggests that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to integrate the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the review methods is important, the expertise in the subject matter and technical components is also crucial. Even though, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, specifically of RCTs, have exploded, the quality of the systematic reviews is highly variable and consequently, the opinions reached of the same studies are quite divergent. Numerous deficiencies have been described in methodologic assessment of the quality of the individual articles. Consequently, observational studies can provide an important complementary source of information, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted in the context of confounding bias to which they are prone. Appropriate systematic reviews of observational studies, in conjunction with RCTs, may provide the basis for elimination of a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence. Steps in conducting systematic reviews of observational studies include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. MOOSE, or Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, a proposal for reporting contains specifications including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the MOOSE checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analysis for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision-makers. This manuscript describes systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Authors frequently utilize RCTs and observational studies in one systematic review; thus, they should also follow the reporting standards of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement, which also provides a checklist. A combined approach of QUOROM and MOOSE will improve reporting of systematic reviews and lead to progress and innovations in health care. Key words: Observational studies, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, metaanalysis, randomized trials, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, confounding bias, QUOROM, MOOSE

scholarly journals Delivery room interventions to prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e028066 ◽  
Author(s):  
Souvik Mitra ◽  
Timothy Disher ◽  
Gerhard Pichler ◽  
Brandon D'Souza ◽  
Helen Mccord ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lung Injury ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Delivery Room ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based

IntroductionAs gestational age decreases, incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and chronic lung disease increases. There are many interventions used in the delivery room to prevent acute lung injury and consequently BPD in these patients. The availability of different treatment options often poses a practical challenge to the practicing neonatologist when it comes to making an evidence-based choice as the multitude of pairwise systematic reviews including Cochrane reviews that are currently available only provide a narrow perspective through head-to-head comparisons.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating delivery room interventions within the first golden hour after birth for prevention of BPD. The primary outcome includes BPD. Secondary outcomes include death at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age or before discharge; severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grade 3 or 4 based on the Papile criteria); any air leak syndromes (including pneumothorax or pulmonary interstitial emphysema); retinopathy of prematurity (any stage) and neurodevelopmental impairment at 18–24 months. We will search from their inception to August 2018, the following databases: Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials as well as grey literature resources. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, review full texts, extract information and assess the risk of bias and the confidence in the estimate (with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach). This review will use Bayesian network meta-analysis approach which allows the comparison of the multiple delivery room interventions for prevention of BPD. We will perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine the pooled direct and indirect treatment effect estimates for each outcome, effectiveness and safety of delivery room interventions for prevention of BPD.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed protocol is a network meta-analysis, which has been registered on PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42018078648). The results will provide an evidence-based guide to choosing the right sequence of early postnatal interventions that will be associated with the least likelihood of inducing lung injury and BPD in preterm infants. Furthermore, we will identify knowledge gaps and will encourage further research for other therapeutic options. Therefore, its results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Due to the nature of the design, no ethics approval is necessary.

Evidence-based diagnosis

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 57-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny Whiting ◽  
Roger Harbord ◽  
Isabel de Salis ◽  
Matthias Egger ◽  
Jonathan Sterne
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Process ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Literature Searching ◽  
Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic ◽  
Statistical Knowledge ◽  
Appropriate Treatment

Making an accurate diagnosis is essential to ensure that a patient receives appropriate treatment and correct information regarding their prognosis. Characteristics of diagnostic tests are quantified in test accuracy studies, but many such studies have methodological flaws. The HSRC evidence-based diagnosis programme has focused on methods for systematic reviews of test accuracy studies, and the wider context in which tests are ordered and interpreted. We carried out a range of projects relating to literature searching, quality assessment, meta-analysis, presentation of results, and interactions between doctors and patients during the diagnostic process. We have shown that systematic reviews of test accuracy studies should search a range of databases and that current diagnostic filters do not have sufficient accuracy to be used in test accuracy reviews. Summary quality scores should not be used in test accuracy reviews; the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy included in Systematic Reviews (QUADAS) tool for assessing test accuracy studies is acceptable for quality assessment. We have shown that the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) and bivariate models for meta-analysis of test accuracy are statistically equivalent in many circumstances, and have developed an add-on module for the statistical software package Stata that enables these statistically rigorous models to be fitted by those without expert statistical knowledge. Three areas that would benefit from further research are literature searching, synthesis of results from individual patient data and presentation of results.

scholarly journals REGISTERING AND REPORTING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-126
Author(s):  
Pallavi Patro ◽  
Durga Prasanna Misra
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Literature Searches ◽  
Review Question ◽  
Based Medicine

Systematic reviews are considered as the highest rung in the ladder of evidence-based medicine. They are bound by a pre-defined structure and requirement for extensive literature searches, when compared with the more liberal format of narrative reviews. Systematic review protocols should ideally be pre-registered to avoid duplication or redundancy. After defining clear review question(s), thorough literature searches form the basis of systematic reviews. Presentation of results should be qualitative or quantitative (meta-analysis) if the data is homogenous enough to permit pooling across multiple studies. Quality of individual studies by Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool for interventional studies and other suitable scales for observational studies, as well as appropriate assessment of publication bias are recommended. Certainty of outcomes should be assessed by the GRADE profiler. Finally, systematic reviews should conclude with recommendations for future research, based on their findings.

scholarly journals Evaluating the Quality of the Iranian Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Economic Evaluations in Healthcare from 2005 to 2015

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Zahra Heidarifard ◽  
Efat Jabarpour
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Economic Perspective ◽  
Meta Analyses

Context: The number of studies on health is increasing rapidly worldwide and in Iran. Systematic review studies, meta-analyses, and economic evaluation are of great importance in evidence-based decision making because of their standing in the evidence-based pyramid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of Iranian systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies and economic evaluations on healthcare. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to find considered studies, including systematic reviews, meta analyses and economic evaluations published from 2005 to 2015. Because of the high volume of review studies, 10% of all systematic reviews and meta-analyses were selected as a random sample. Also, all economic evaluations were included. Articles were evaluated using checklists, including PRISMA, AMSTAR and QHES with a maximum score of 27, 11 and 100, respectively. The quality score for each criterion as well as the epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of all articles was determined. Data were analyzed using SPSS V. 16 software. Results: After searching the databases, 1084 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were obtained, 10% of which were included in the study. A total of 41 economic evaluations were also included. The mean scores of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were 17.04 (5.35) and 5.42 (1.97), respectively, and 68.21 (12.44) for economic evaluations based on QHES. Only three systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles had recorded protocols and 85% of the studies included the terms “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” in their titles. Only one study had been updated. In addition, 81% of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published in specialized journals and 47% in Iranian journals. Financial resources and conflict of interests had been mentioned in 33% and 66% of the studies, respectively. Of the selected studies, 60% had evaluated the quality of the articles and 35% of the studies had assessed publication bias. In economic evaluations, 56% had used CEA analysis, 22% CUA analysis, 12% CBA analysis, and one study had used CMA analysis. Of these studies, 54% were model-based health economic studies and 12% were trial-based. The economic perspective was the health care system in most studies. Forty-four percent of the studies had a short time horizon of one year or less, whereas 33% had a lifetime horizon. Moreover, 68% of the studies showed sensitivity analysis and only 5 included the magnitude and direction of the bias. Conclusions: Overall, the reporting and methodological quality of the selected studies were estimated at a moderate level. Based on these results, it is recommended to adopt strategies to reduce preventable errors in studies. Having a primary plan and protocol and registering it as a systematic review can be an important factor in improving the quality of studies. Economic evaluations should also focus on issues, such as economic perspective, time horizon, available bias, and sensitivity analysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document