review is applied to the written research protocol, which describes in detail how human participants are involved. The process of scientific/methodological review involves assessing the overall merits and identification of risks to human participants. Scientific/methodological review is a constructive blogger.com Size: 56KB A methodological review SAMUEL L. BECKER Stalwart authors or publishers who wish to ob-tain the benefits of full and frank reviews of their articles or books (with equal space for re-joinder) are invited to submit three copies to the editor at least one month in advance of the dead-line for an issue, signifying that the material is · Methodological review: quality of randomized controlled trials in health literacy. Julii Brainard 1, Stephanie Howard Wilsher 1, Charlotte Salter 1 & Yoon Kong Loke 1 BMC Health Services Research volume 16, Article number: () Cite this articleCited by: 14
What is a methodological literature review? – AnswersToAll
BMC Medical Research Methodology volume 11methodological review, Article number: 15 Cite this article. Metrics details. Hundreds of studies of maternity care interventions have been published, too many for most people involved in providing maternity care to identify and consider when making decisions. It became apparent that systematic reviews of individual studies were required to appraise, methodological review, summarise and bring together existing studies in a single place, methodological review.
However, decision makers are increasingly faced by a plethora of such reviews and these are likely to be of variable quality and scope, with more than one review of important topics. Systematic reviews or overviews of reviews are a logical and appropriate next step, allowing the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted, providing clinical decision makers with the evidence they need.
The methods used to identify and appraise published and unpublished reviews systematically, methodological review, drawing on our experiences and good practice in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews are described.
The process of identifying and appraising all published reviews allows researchers to describe the methodological review of this evidence base, summarise and compare the review's conclusions and discuss the methodological review of these conclusions.
Methodological challenges and possible solutions are described within the context of i sources, methodological review, ii study selection, iii quality assessment i. the extent of searching undertaken for the reviews, methodological review, description of study selection and inclusion criteria, comparability of included studies, assessment of publication bias and assessment of heterogeneityiv methodological review of results, methodological review v implications for practice and research.
Conducting a systematic review of reviews methodological review the usefulness of bringing together a summary of reviews in one place, where there is more than one review on an important topic. The methods described here should help clinicians to review and appraise published reviews systematically, and aid evidence-based clinical methodological review. Peer Review reports, methodological review.
The healthcare literature contains hundreds of thousands of studies of healthcare interventions, growing at tens of thousands per year [ 1 ]. In most areas of health care, there are too many studies for people involved in providing care to identify and consider when making decisions.
Researchers have recognised this problem and many have accepted the challenge of preparing systematic reviews of individual studies in order to appraise, methodological review, summarise and bring together existing studies in a single place.
More recently, calls have been made for 'rapid reviews' to methodological review decision-makers with the evidence they need in a shorter time frame, but the possible limitations of such 'rapid reviews', compared to full systematic reviews, methodological review further research [ 2 ].
There are now methodological review organisations dedicated to the preparation of systematic reviews, including the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence NICE in the UK, the Evidence-based Practice Centre Program, funded by AHRQ in the USA, the Joanna Briggs Institute, and the international Campbell and Cochrane Collaborations, with the latter being the largest single producer of systematic reviews in health care, methodological review, with more than published by the end of [ 3 ].
In recent years however, decision makers who were once overwhelmed by the number of individual studies have become faced by a plethora of reviews [ 45 ]. These reviews are likely to be of variable quality and scope, with more than one systematic review on important topics. For example, a comprehensive search of twelve health related methodological review databases using database specific search strategies identified over thirty reviews evaluating the effectiveness of nurse and midwife-led interventions on clinical outcomes, methodological review, as part of an on-going study into the impact of the role of nurse and midwife specialist and advanced practitioners in Ireland.
A logical and appropriate next step is to conduct a systematic review of reviews of the topic under consideration, allowing the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted, thereby providing clinical decision makers with the evidence they need. We have been involved in several examples of systematic reviews or overviews of reviews [ 6 — 9 ] and The Cochrane Collaboration introduced a new type of Methodological review review in [ 10 ], the overview of Cochrane reviews, with two full overviews [ 1112 ] and protocols for five more [ 13 — 17 ] published by October These reviews of reviews aims to provide a summary of evidence from more than one systematic review at a variety of different levels, including the combination of different interventions, methodological review, different outcomes, different methodological review, problems or populations, or the provision of a summary of evidence on the adverse effects of an intervention [ 10 ].
This paper describes the conduct and methods used to identify and appraise published and unpublished systematic reviews systematically. It draws on our experience of conducting several of these reviews of reviews in recent years.
The purpose of such an overview, in identifying and appraising all published reviews is to describe their quality, summarise and compare their methodological review and discuss the strength of these conclusions, methodological review, so that best evidence is made available to clinical decision-makers. During the review process a number of methodological challenges can arise. We describe these challenges and offer possible solutions to overcome them. We hope to provide a guide to clinicians and researchers who wish to conduct a systematic review of reviews and to share our experiences.
The objective and the reasons for conducting a systematic review of reviews should be made explicit at the start of the process, as this is likely to influence the methods used for the review, methodological review. In formulating the scope for the review of reviews, the PICOS participants, methodological review, interventions, comparators, methodological review, outcomes, and study design structure may be helpful.
This can help the reviewers to delineate clearly if they wish, for example, methodological review, to compare and summarise systematic reviews that address the same treatment comparison or a particular intervention for a population or condition, or a range of interventions for people with a specific condition.
Following this, the methods in conducting a systematic review of reviews require consideration of the following aspects, akin to the planning for a systematic review of individual studies: sources, review selection, quality assessment of reviews, methodological review, presentation of results and implications for practice and research. Locating and retrieving relevant literature is challenging, yet methodological review to the success of a systematic review.
The material sourced provides the information from which evidence, conclusions and recommendations are drawn, methodological review. For many, the literature search may appear overwhelming, given the sheer volume of material to check through.
However, establishing a systematic search strategy, before commencing the literature search, is fundamental to appropriate and successful information retrieval, methodological review. This planning assists in meeting the requirements of the systematic review and in answering the research question. Methodological review developing a search strategy, the scope of the search, its thoroughness and methodological review time available to conduct it, all need to be considered.
The aim is to ensure that the systematic review of reviews is comprehensive, thorough and objective. Methodological review methods used in sourcing relevant literature to conduct a systematic review of reviews are similar to those adopted in conducting a systematic review of individual studies with some subtle differences described here.
A realistic time-frame to conduct the systematic review of reviews should be established, methodological review. It has been estimated that a typical systematic review would take between six and eighteen months [ 18 ] but this is very dependent on the research question and the staffing, methodological review, funding and other resources available.
The process might be faster for a systematic review of reviews if the time-frame to complete the literature search is significantly reduced through the ability to target the methodological review of articles most likely to be reports of a systematic review. In a systematic review of individual studies, the search should be as wide as possible to maximize the likelihood of capturing all relevant data and minimizing the effects of reporting biases.
A search of a variety of electronic databases relevant to the topic of interest is recommended methodological review 18 ], methodological review. However, in a systematic review of reviews, it may be possible to limit the searches to databases specific to systematic reviews such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Methodological review of Effects.
Likewise, although the search for a review of individual studies might need to cover many decades [ 19 ], limiting the search to period from the early s onwards is likely to identify all but the very small minority of systematic reviews conducted before then [ 2021 ], methodological review. Furthermore, researchers might find that identifying methodological review highlighting a methodological review high quality systematic review will prove of most benefit to decision makers using their review or reviews.
Methodological review, a summary of the earlier reviews can methodological review prove helpful if these contain methodological review information that is not included in the recent review.
Applying language restrictions is not recommended; but, methodological review, unavoidable constraints such as a lack of access to translation services or funds to pay for these may make it necessary to restrict the systematic review or reviews to English language publications. In such instances, this limitation should be acknowledged when reporting the review and it might be worthwhile reporting the difference between searches with and without language restrictions in order to estimate the amount of literature that might have been excluded.
The search terms used for the literature search should be clearly described, with information on their relevance to the research question. Methodological review, search terms should be focused so that they are broad enough in scope to capture all the relevant data yet narrow enough to minimize the capture of extraneous literature that may result in unnecessary time and effort being spent assessing irrelevant articles.
In conducting a systematic review of reviews, systematic reviews rather than individual studies are of interest to the reviewer methodological review several search strategies have been developed to identify this type of research [ 2223 ] which could be combined with the terms for the relevant healthcare topic. In developing the search strategy for a systematic review of reviews, researchers might wish to consider the PRESS initiative, developed as a means for peer reviewing literature searches [ 24 ] to check that the various elements of the electronic search strategy have been considered.
To minimize the risk of missing relevant reviews, a manual search of key journals and of the reference lists of reviews captured by the initial searches is also recommended, methodological review.
The literature search can also be complemented by contacting experts in the topic under review and by checking articles which cite individual studies that are known to be relevant to the topic. This may prove relevant in learning of published systematic reviews that are not indexed in the bibliographic databases searched, and of ongoing systematic reviews near completion.
The development of a prospective register of systematic reviews should help further with this [ 25 ]. A major challenge to review selection is methodological review all reviews relevant to the topic of interest, and of potential importance to answering the research question.
During the planning phase, before commencing the systematic review of reviews, a review team should be established. The review team should include at least one methodological review with methodological expertise in conducting systematic reviews and at least one person with expertise on the topic under review. The review team is responsible for developing a review selection strategy, methodological review.
An agreement of inclusion and exclusion criteria should be made before methodological review the review selection process. Aspects of this process might include decisions regarding the type of reviews that may be included in the systematic review. For example, in our review on interventions for preventing preterm birth [ 6 ], we restricted the inclusion criteria to reviews of randomized controlled trials.
Another example of inclusion criteria might be to limit the systematic review of reviews to reviews of a particular type of participant such as women having their first baby or which assess a particular type of pain relief.
When a selection strategy has been developed, the selection process is carried out in a similar way to a review of individual studies:.
Assess methodological review reviews for relevance and quality; ideally, using independent assessment by at least two members of the review team. This reduces bias in review selection and allows for appropriate discussion should uncertainty arise.
The quality and strength of evidence presented in the individual, included reviews should influence the conclusions drawn in the systematic review of these. The quality and scope of published reviews varies widely. The strength of the conclusions and the ability to provide decision-makers with reliable information depends on the inclusion of reviews that meet a minimum standard of quality.
When assessing the quality of the reviews, one should try to avoid being influenced by extraneous variables, such as authors, institutional affiliations and journal names; and should focus on the quality of the conduct of the review.
Although the researchers will usually have to do this via an assessment of the methodological review of report, with the hope that initiatives such as PRISMA formerly, QUOROM which assist by facilitating adequate standards of reporting [ 26 ]. The AMSTAR tool [ 27 ], which became available after we started work on our review of reviews, is the only tool that we are methodological review of that has been validated as a means to assess the methodological quality methodological review systematic reviews and could be used in the review of reviews to determine if the potentially eligible reviews meet minimum requirements based on quality.
Although our review of reviews began before the publication of the AMSTAR tool, we used similar domains to assess review quality. Our assessment criteria are shown below and provide a structure that can be used to report the quality and comparability of the included reviews to help readers assess the strength of the methodological review in the review of reviews:.
Information on the extent of searching should be clearly provided, to allow for a comprehensive assessment of the scope of the review. This information should be clearly reported in the systematic review of reviews.
Are there any details of statistical tests such as funnel plot analysis to assess for publication bias? In the presence of significant heterogeneity, were statistical tests used to address this? For example, methodological review, in our review of reviews on fetal fibronectin and transvaginal cervical ultrasound for predicting preterm birth, [ 8 ] we included reviews that had incorporated studies among women who were both symptomatic and asymptomatic for preterm methodological review. As a means of addressing methodological review of the included reviews, we provided details methodological review the number of women in each group separately and reported the results for each group separately, where applicable, methodological review.
When the results of a systematic review of reviews are presented, this should present the methodological review with the major conclusions of the review through the provision of answers to the research question, as well as the evidence on which these conclusions are based and an assessment of the quality of the evidence supporting each conclusion; for example, methodological review, using the GRADE approach as adopted for the 'Summary of Findings' table in Cochrane reviews [ 28 ], methodological review.
It is important to be specific in reporting the primary outcome of interest for the review, and this can reduce workload by limiting data extraction to only those results relevant to the topic of interest from reviews that report on several outcome measures. For example, methodological review, some systematic reviews on antibiotic therapy for the prevention of preterm birth [ 29methodological review, 30 ] report a variety of outcome measures other than preterm birth e.
neonatal outcomes. However, in our systematic reviews of reviews [ 68 ], our research focus on preterm birth meant that only results for the effects on preterm birth were extracted.
The use of summary tables and figures is helpful in presenting methodological review in methodological review structured and clear methodological review that will enhance textual commentary, methodological review. Table 1 is an example of the provision of details of the scope of the reviews included in a systematic review of reviews 3. Sources of evidence and some quality assessment criteria are included. The quality assessment is enhanced by a narrative discussion of heterogeneity and publication bias.
Table 2 provides an example of how summary results from each original review might be presented in the systematic review of reviews. The use of a checklist or reporting tool may also guide the reviewer when reporting on a systematic review of reviews, methodological review. Although we did not identify a tool specific to reporting of systematic reviews of reviews, methodological review, the PRISMA statement provides a useful framework to follow [ 26 ].
This guidance, developed for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions, can be used to assess item inclusion in a systematic review of systematic reviews.
The Steps of a Systematic Review
, time: 3:26
Guidelines for Methodological Reviews and Perspectives in Diabetes Diabetes considers two types of review articles: Methodological Reviews and Perspectives in Diabetes. Methodological Reviews provide a comprehensive, critical perspective of research topics and/or methodological approaches that are highly relevant to investigators in the field of A methodological review SAMUEL L. BECKER Stalwart authors or publishers who wish to ob-tain the benefits of full and frank reviews of their articles or books (with equal space for re-joinder) are invited to submit three copies to the editor at least one month in advance of the dead-line for an issue, signifying that the material is · As mentioned previously, there are a number of existing guidelines for literature reviews. Depending on the methodology needed to achieve the purpose of the review, all types can be helpful and appropriate to reach a specific goal (for examples, please see Table 1).These approaches can be qualitative, quantitative, or have a mixed design depending on the phase Cited by:
No comments:
Post a Comment