Search results
- Systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for a specific topic of interest, summarising the results of multiple studies to aid in clinical decisions and resource allocation. They remain among the best forms of evidence, and reduce the bias inherent in other methods.
www.britishjournalofnursing.com/content/professional/carrying-out-systematic-literature-reviews-an-introduction/
People also ask
Why are systematic reviews important?
How do you write a systematic review?
Can a systematic review be used to answer different research questions?
Why do nurses need a systematic review process?
Why is a systematic review inadvisable?
Is a systematic review a good research methodology?
Jul 6, 2021 · Systematic reviews – when an appropriate approach to the topic being researched – are a way to synthesize and evaluate the range of evidence available in multiple primary studies.
- Veronica Phillips, Eleanor Barker
- 2021
Jul 23, 2019 · Why are systematic reviews important? Systematic reviews offer a number of benefits. For starters, they deliver a clear and comprehensive overview of available evidence on a given topic. Moreover, SRs also help identify research gaps in our current understanding of a field.
- Why Do A Systematic Review?#Section-1-1
- What Is The Review Question?#Section-1-2
- Who Should Do A Systematic Review?#Section-1-3
- The Importance of Reliability#Section-1-4
- Protocol Development#Section-1-5
- Data Management and Quality Assurance#Section-1-6
- Chapter Information#Section-1-7
- References#Section-1-8
Systematic reviews were developed out of a need to ensure that decisions affecting people’s lives can be informed by an up-to-date and complete understanding of the relevant research evidence. With the volume of research literature growing at an ever-increasing rate, it is impossible for individual decision makers to assess this vast quantity of pr...
Getting the research question right is critical for the success of a systematic review. Review authors should ensure that the review addresses an important question to those who are expected to use and act upon its conclusions. We discuss the formulation of questions in detail in Chapter 2. For a question about the effects of an intervention, the P...
Systematic reviews should be undertaken by a team. Indeed, Cochrane will not publish a review that is proposed to be undertaken by a single person. Working as a team not only spreads the effort, but ensures that tasks such as the selection of studies for eligibility, data extraction and rating the certainty of the evidence will be performed by at l...
Systematic reviews aim to be an accurate representation of the current state of knowledge about a given issue. As understanding improves, the review can be updated. Nevertheless, it is important that the review itself is accurate at the time of publication. There are two main reasons for this imperative for accuracy. First, health decisions that af...
Preparing a systematic review is complex and involves many judgements. To minimize the potential for bias in the review process, these judgements should be made as far as possible in ways that do not depend on the findings of the studies included in the review. Review authors’ prior knowledge of the evidence may, for example, influence the definiti...
Systematic reviews should be replicable, and retaining a record of the inclusion decisions, data collection, transformations or adjustment of data will help to establish a secure and retrievable audit trail. They can be operationally complex projects, often involving large research teams operating in different sites across the world. Good data mana...
Authors: Toby J Lasserson, James Thomas, Julian PT Higgins Acknowledgements: This chapter builds on earlier versions of the Handbook. We would like to thank Ruth Foxlee, Richard Morley, Soumyadeep Bhaumik, Mona Nasser, Dan Fox and Sally Crowe for their contributions to Section 1.3. Funding:JT is supported by the National Institute for Health Resear...
Antman E, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers T. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts: treatment for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992; 268: 240–248. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, Howells DW, Ioannidis JP, Oliver S. How to inc...
The PRISMA 12 and ENTREQ 13 checklists can be useful resources when writing a systematic review. These uniform reporting tools focus on how to write coherent and comprehensive reviews that facilitate readers and reviewers in evaluating the relative strengths and weaknesses.
Jun 1, 2023 · A Systematic Review (SR) is a synthesis of evidence that is identified and critically appraised to understand a specific topic. SRs are more comprehensive than a Literature Review, which most academics will be familiar with, as they follow a methodical process to identify and analyse existing literature ( Cochrane, 2022 ).
Jan 4, 2019 · 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.
