A second edition of the book version of the Handbook will be published by Wiley in mid
Results Conclusion The first step is to formulate a research question. This stage forms part of a larger stage of devising the research protocol. The question should be clearly focussed, neither too narrow nor too broad.
The acronym PICO has been devised to summarise the four parts a question should take into account the population or patient group studied, the intervention, treatment or test, a comparison or alternative intervention, and the outcome of the intervention see figure 1 for an example The research protocol covers the methods for searching the literature and extracting and analysing the data.
The methodology should be clearly defined before starting, in order to minimise bias. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should also be determined at this stage. The literature search is the next step. Bibliographic databases including Pubmed, Medline, the Cochrane Library and Embase for healthcare can be used.
It is wise to use more than one online database as each one includes a different range of journals. Reference lists of articles are useful for finding new areas to investigate, as can handsearching of journals. The aim of searching the literature is to produce an inclusive list of relevant research studies from which to select the studies included in the review.
This stage also involves screening for and removing duplicates. This can be done through a computer based reference management system such as EndNote.
Data extraction can be done using a standardised form. This links to an example of such a form: Such a form means data can also be entered into a database, making future use easier.
Different types of systematic review demand different forms, so ensure you use the most correct type.
Quality appraisal is perhaps the most central step, and there are a number of checklists which have been developed to help with this process. This links to a simple and easy to understand example: It should be kept in mind, however, that different checklists can produce very different results.
On the basis of quality appraisal, studies are rejected and accepted. Data analysis is the next stage. A simple form of data analysis is to descriptively evaluate the studies, summarising these in table format. Such tables typically include the population studied, interventions and outcomes.
Methodology and potential bias might also be listed. Metaanalysis might also be carried out.
The results are then interpreted. Strengths and weaknesses of the studies included in the review are considered. The findings of the studies are summarised, and conclusions indicated.
Recommendations for future studies are often made. Writing up a Systematic Review Systematic reviews follow a clear structure, generally of the format The title should be concise and accurate The abstract should be clearly structured The introduction should summarise the topic and explain why the review is necessary.
This section covers the number of studies found, how many excluded, details of study range and characteristics, study quality, and so on.
The discussion section should also be clearly ordered. It starts with a summary statement setting out the main finding.
The next paragraph describes limitations of studies included and of the review process. The third paragraph should cover the negative and positive aspects of the methodology, while the fourth paragraph contexualises the results in terms of existing knowledge.
The final paragraph sets out conclusions and implications.A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review Volume 37 Paper 43 1 Introduction Scholars who attempt to write standalone literature reviews for the first time face a paradox.
This article is the second in a new series on the systematic review from the Joanna Briggs Institute, an inter - national collaborative supporting evidence-based . Aims: To undertake a systematic review (SR) of qualitative research on the experience of being a teenage mother in the UK.
Objective: To systematically review the qualitative evidence on the lives of young mothers, under the age of. The search strategy used in the review ideally should follow established guidelines, should be comprehensive, reproducible and documented.
The Cochrane Handbook () states: Systematic reviews of interventions require a thorough, objective and reproducible search of a range of sources to identify as many relevant studies as possible. Oct 31, · Methods of Blinding in Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Pharmacologic Treatments: A Systematic Review We undertook a systematic review of all reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments with blinding published in in high impact-factor journals from Medline .
Abstract. This review covers the basic principles of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The problems associated with traditional narrative reviews are discussed, as is the role of systematic reviews in limiting bias associated with the assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of studies addressing specific clinical questions.