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 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.

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 The Effectiveness of Acupuncture and Moxibustion for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Protocol of an Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genhua Tang ◽  
Jun Xiong ◽  
Siyuan Zhu ◽  
Zhiying Zhong ◽  
Jun Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Joint Damage ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Acupuncture And Moxibustion ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Rheumatoid Arthritis(RA) is a common chronic disease with an annual incidence of 25 per 10000 of the population, which will result in severe joint damage,disability and death. It is strongly supported by systematic reviews (SRs) as part of the treatment of these patients. However, the evidence has not been methodically integrated. This overview aims to describe,synthesize,evaluate the reliability of evidence come from current systematic reviews of acupuncture and moxibustion therapy for RA.Methods: We will search for SRs and meta-analyses from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, Wan-Fang Databases,China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Citation Information by National Institute of Informatics, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database(CBM),Chinese Scientific Journal Database(VIP Database). Additionally, we will search for the ongoing, unpublished, or recently completed SRs on the PROSPERO database. Two reviewers will assess those SRs, select data independently. Any disagreement will be resolved through discussion or arbitrated by the third author if necessary. The overview of SRs and meta-analysis will be reportedaccording to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)statement.Results: The results in this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Conclusion: The conclusion of our study expects to provide extensive evidence from multiple meta-analysis and systematic reviews for patients with RA.INPLASY registration number:INPLASY202080031.

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 747-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andy P. Siddaway ◽  
Alex M. Wood ◽  
Larry V. Hedges
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
High Level ◽  
Meta Analyses

Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information. We outline core standards and principles and describe commonly encountered problems. Although this guide targets psychological scientists, its high level of abstraction makes it potentially relevant to any subject area or discipline. We argue that systematic reviews are a key methodology for clarifying whether and how research findings replicate and for explaining possible inconsistencies, and we call for researchers to conduct systematic reviews to help elucidate whether there is a replication crisis.

A Tutorial on Conducting Meta-Analyses of Clinical Outcome Research

1998 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1227-1241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall R. Robey ◽  
Susan D. Dalebout
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Outcome Research ◽  
Treatment Effectiveness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Communication Disorder ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Meta Analyses

Throughout the educational, medical, psychological, and social sciences, meta-analysis is the present-day, broadly accepted means for combining many quasiexperiments in a synthesis for the purpose of establishing the weight of scientific evidence bearing on a certain research question. Meta-analysis thereby is the preferred method for determining the preponderance of evidence in clinical-outcome research relating to questions of treatment efficacy and treatment effectiveness. Relatively few meta-analyses appear in the literature of the communication disorder sciences. The purpose of this tutorial is to enhance the familiarity and accessibility of this technology in the domains of audiology and speech-language pathology. The results of the accompanying example constitute a preliminary meta-analysis of patient-perceived treatment effectiveness. The substance of the tutorial, however, transcends disciplinary interests regarding types of communication disorder.

scholarly journals Quotation Accuracy of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols on Acupuncture

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 55
Author(s):  
José M. Morán ◽  
María Romero-Moreno ◽  
Azucena Santillán-García ◽  
Ivan Herrera-Peco
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Descriptive Statistics ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Literature Searching ◽  
Acupuncture Research ◽  
Meta Analyses

Currently, published systematic review protocols (SR protocols) have increasingly become a new trend in fields such as acupuncture and are therefore a new source of quotations in these fields. Systematic reviews are considered the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid as they embody comprehensive literature searching. Quotations are key elements to achieve this goal as they can support the assertions of the original authors, but the ‘misquotation’ exists, too, and they can be misleading to the reader. The aim of this study was to examine the quotation accuracy of SR protocols in a meta-analysis on acupuncture research. We searched SCOPUS through 31 December, 2020, and each protocol and its citations were analyzed and classified as correct or incorrect. We used descriptive statistics to report the quotation errors and characteristics of the included protocols. The results showed 248 SR protocols, where 124 protocols received quotations and 38 quotations (31.4%) were erroneous. Only 11 (4.4%) of the published SRs and SR protocols had been published previously. Furthermore, the scientific journal in which the most SR protocols were published was Medicine (193; 77.8%), followed by BMJ Open (39; 15.7%). Authors from China (86.5%) were the most productive in publishing SRs and SR protocols. Finally, we concluded that the number of SR protocols and meta-analyses published in scientific journals and indexed by databases exceeds the publication capacity of the SRs associated with them, generating scientific literature that does not make any novel contribution to knowledge.

scholarly journals Treatment effects of pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacotherapy of Alzheimer dementia: A systematic review overview and updated network meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chitima Boongird ◽  
Worapong Tearneukit ◽  
Thunyarat Anothaisintawee ◽  
Gareth McKay ◽  
Ammarin Thakkinstian
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Alzheimer Dementia ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Introduction: Many existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses summarize the evidence of pharmacotherapies (PTs) and non-pharmacotherapies (NPTs) for wide range of available interventions for the management of Alzheimer dementia (AD). However, a succinct summary and efficacy comparison across the different types of treatments and interventions is lacking. We aim to identify the treatment or treatments with the highest efficacy of current pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for AD.Methods and analysis: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be selected according to the following criteria: conducted in elderly patients aged 60 years or older with AD, applied pairwise meta-analysis (PMA) or network meta-analysis (NMA) for pooled relative treatment effects for at least one pair of PTs and NPTs, and at least one of following outcomes was provided for patients/caregivers: cognitive function status, behavior, quality of life. The summary characteristics for each RCT will include the general design, participants, intervention, outcome measurements, duration of therapy and adverse events. The risk of bias will be assessed using Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) checklist and the risk of bias of individual RCTs will be assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval will not be required because this study is based solely on published literature that meets accepted ethical standards, and there will be no concerns about privacy. Dissemination of the evidence obtained will include publication in a peer-reviewed international journal to improve clinical practices on the basis of robust scientific evidence.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021228245

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 193-206
Author(s):  
Nandi Siegfried ◽  
Lawrence Mbuagbaw
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Similar Data ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

Systematic reviews play an important role in healthcare decision-making. When conducted correctly, they provide up-to-date, comprehensive, and replicable summaries of evidence. Authors of systematic reviews are expected to develop a protocol that outlines the research question and key methodological features of their review. A comprehensive and exhaustive search should be conducted, followed by screening to capture studies that meet the prespecified inclusion criteria. Once the relevant studies have been identified, data will be extracted, using a dedicated tool that permits the review authors to confirm the eligibility of the study and collect information on its design, risk of bias, and results. Sufficiently similar data may be pooled using meta-analytic techniques or synthesized narratively. A summary of the overall quality of evidence for each outcome is an essential component of a systematic review. The main concerns with systematic reviews are (1) selection bias: systematic exclusion of relevant studies due to publication status or language; (2) indexing bias: failure to identify relevant studies because they are not indexed accurately; and (3) information bias: missing or inaccurate information in the included studies. Other approaches to evidence synthesis include mapping the evidence with scoping reviews; conducting overviews of systematic reviews; using individual patient data; conducting network meta-analyses for multiple comparisons; conducting rapid reviews when evidence is needed urgently; synthesis of diagnostic accuracy data; and synthesis of qualitative data. Systematic reviews often inform clinical guidelines and require careful planning and execution by teams with content and methodological expertise.

Research synthesis: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2020 ◽  
pp. 237-254
Author(s):  
Marianna Purgato ◽  
Giovanni Ostuzzi ◽  
Corrado Barbui
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Analytical Techniques ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Multiple Treatment ◽  
Innovative Methods ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

In everyday clinical practice, the choice of the best treatment to be delivered to each individual patient should be based on the integration of three main aspects: the patient’s psychopathological status, the clinical experience, and the best scientific knowledge available about efficacy and safety of interventions. The approach that integrates these three aspects is known as evidence-based medicine. The aim of this chapter is to describe the main methodological characteristics of what constitutes an evidence base, in order to assist mental health professionals in the compelling world of scientific evidence. We present randomized controlled trials as a tool for evaluating efficacy and tolerability of treatments, systematic reviews of randomized trials, and meta-analysis, a statistical approach that allows the calculation of a weighted pooled estimate of treatment efficacy and tolerability. Finally, two innovative methods to statistically summarize data using meta-analytical techniques are described: individual patient data meta-analysis and multiple treatment meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Application of the Subspace-Based Methods in Health Monitoring of Civil Structures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 3607
Author(s):  
Hoofar Shokravi ◽  
Hooman Shokravi ◽  
Norhisham Bakhary ◽  
Mahshid Heidarrezaei ◽  
Seyed Saeid Rahimian Koloor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
System Identification ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Monitoring ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Civil Structures ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Research Gap ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Subspace System Identification ◽  
Insight Into

A large number of research studies in structural health monitoring (SHM) have presented, extended, and used subspace system identification. However, there is a lack of research on systematic literature reviews and surveys of studies in this field. Therefore, the current study is undertaken to systematically review the literature published on the development and application of subspace system identification methods. In this regard, major databases in SHM, including Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, have been selected and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) has been applied to ensure complete and transparent reporting of systematic reviews. Along this line, the presented review addresses the available studies that employed subspace-based techniques in the vibration-based damage detection (VDD) of civil structures. The selected papers in this review were categorized into authors, publication year, name of journal, applied techniques, research objectives, research gap, proposed solutions and models, and findings. This study can assist practitioners and academicians for better condition assessment of structures and to gain insight into the literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document