Articles on Systematic Review
A systematic review involves the application of scientific strategies, in ways that limit bias, to the assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies that address a specific clinical question (Cook, Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997).
Following are some articles from the KT Library that address this topic. NCDDR staff reviewed a number of articles, developed a brief abstract, and assigned ratings based on strength of evidence, readability, and consumer orientation. For more information on these ratings, see KT Library Descriptor Scales.
Demner-Fushman, D., Few, B., Hauser, S. E., &Thoma, G. (2006). Automatically identifying health outcome information in MEDLINE records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13, 52-60.
Abstract: Demner-Fushman et al. target health care professionals with limited time to review research. The authors describe an automated evidence-based medicine model approach to identifying relevant information in medical research quickly without needing to analyze the entire document. The approach was ranked against PubMed Clinical Queries and the authors found that the outcome-based ranking provided significantly more accurate information.
Evidence:
3 - Qual./Quant. research
Consumer Orientation: C - No data
Readability: III - High (Grade 12 or above)
Glanville, J. M., Lefebvre, C., Miles, J. N. V., & Camosso-Stefinovic, J. (2006). How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: Ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94(2), 130-136.
Abstract: Glanville et al. examines whether the 1994 Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy to search for randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE could be improved after ten years of use. They found that "clinical trial" was the best discriminating term. In years in which Cochrane had assessed MEDLINE records, few additional records were found. However, for records not assessed by Cochrane, the term "randomized controlled trial" was very accurate at identifying non-indexed trials, almost equaling the precision of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy.
Evidence: 1 - Author(s) opinion
Consumer Orientation: C - No data
Readability: III - High (Grade 12 or above)
Haynes, R. B., Cotoi, C., Holland, J., Walters, L, Wilczynski, N., Jedraszewski, D.,McKinlay, J., Parrish, R., & McKibbon, K. A. (2006). Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners. JAMA, 295(15), 1801-1808.
Abstract: Haynes et al. describe The McMaster Online Rating of Evidence (MORE) system that utilizes practicing physicians to rate peer-reviewed journal articles in their discipline as the basis for inclusion in the McMaster Premium Literature Service (PLUS) Internet access program. Following a review by staff, volunteer physicians rate articles by whether the article is important to the field (relevance) and whether it is new information (newsworthy). The ratings provide a screen for articles to be included in an Internet service that notifies physicians of recent research. The project demonstrated the value of a peer review of published journal articles by discipline.
Evidence: 1 – Author(s) opinion
Consumer Orientation: C - No data
Readability: III - High (Grade 12 or above)
Johnston, M. V., Sherer, M., & Whyte, J. (2006). Applying evidence standards to rehabilitation research. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 292-309. full-text source.
Abstract: The Johnston et al. explain evidenced based practice standards used in systematic reviews. In addition, the authors apply the evidence based methods to analyze the quality of research in spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and burn rehabilitation. The article concludes that although the rehabilitation field has experienced a dramatic increase in systematic reviews published each year, the number of studies that met the highest level of criteria was very small in all three areas of research.
Evidence: 1 – Author(s) opinion
Consumer Orientation: C - No data
Readability: III - High (Grade 12 or above)
NCDDR. (2005). FOCUS Technical Brief (9). What are the standards for quality research?
Abstract: This issue of FOCUS discusses principles and standards for quality research, the basis for these standards, and strategies for reporting quality research. In the fields of disability and rehabilitation research, there is a healthy debate regarding the specific criteria for quality research, and the specific checklists to be used to standardize reporting. As the debate ensues, there are many ideas emerging in the public domain related to quality research and quality evidence that can be used to help guide the discussion.
Evidence: 1 - Author(s) opinion
Consumer Orientation: C - No data
Readability: III - High (Grade 12 or above)
NCDDR. (2006). FOCUS Technical Brief (15). The Role of Systematic Reviews in Evidence-Based Practice, Research, and Development.
Abstract: This issue of FOCUS written by Ralf W. Schlosser, PhD, is part one of a three part series on the topic of evidence-based technology. This issue provides an overview of systematic reviews in research and development. Systematic reviews aim to synthesize the results of multiple original studies by using strategies that delimit bias. Systematic reviews can be used to inform evidence-based practice, which is increasingly shaping the disability and rehabilitation research field.
Evidence: 1 - Author(s) opinion
Consumer Orientation: C - No data
Readability: III - High (Grade 12 or above)
NCDDR. (2007). FOCUS Technical Brief (17). Appraising the Quality of Systematic Reviews.
Abstract: This issue of FOCUS written by Ralf W. Schlosser, PhD, is part two of a three part series on systematic reviews. This issue describes critical considerations for appraising the quality of a systematic review including the protocol, question, sources, scope, selection principles, and data extraction. The author also describes tools for appraising systematic reviews.
Evidence: 1 - Author(s) opinion
Consumer Orientation: C - No data
Readability: III - High (Grade 12 or above)
Shadish, W., & Myers, D. (2004). Campbell Collaboration research design policy brief.
Abstract: The Research Design Policy Brief provides a rationale and proposed policies regarding The Campbell Collaboration’s systematic reviews on the effectiveness of an intervention. The policies propose development of two databases for randomized and nonrandomized studies, standard design codes to be used in reviews, and designated searchable fields to identify research in the databases.
Evidence: 2 - Expert opinions
Consumer Orientation: C - No data
Readability: III - High (Grade 12 or above)
Shadish, W. R., & Rindskopf, D. M. (2007). Methods for evidence-based practice: Quantitative synthesis of single-subject designs. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 95-109.
Abstract: Shadish and Rindskopf describes their study of the use of single-subject designs in meta-analyses. The article reviews methods for analyzing multiple single-subject designs, and as suggests methods for conducting a meta-analysis using single-subject designs. The article also includes a list of current meta-analyses. The authors provide the following Web site for the most current information on the topic: http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/wshadish/SSD MetaAnalysis.htm
Evidence: 1 - Author(s) opinion
Consumer Orientation: C - No data
Readability: III - High (Grade 12 or above)
Teutsch, S. M., & Berger, M. L. (2005). Evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision making: Related but distinct processes. Medical Decision Making, 25, 487-489.
Abstract: Teutsch and Berger note the increasing use of evidence syntheses to assist a variety of leaders and policymakers in evidence-based decision making. The authors reports that evidence-based reviews and syntheses have very specific guidelines, including an appeals process, in order to make the process transparent to decision makers. However, the authors add that although evidence-based decision making should be transparent to stakeholders, there are no similar standards guiding the use of the information in evidence-based decision making.
Evidence: 1 - Author(s) opinion
Consumer Orientation: C - No data
Readability: III - High (Grade 12 or above)
NCDDR. (2007). FOCUS Technical Brief (16). The Campbell Collaboration: Systematic Reviews and Implications for Evidence-Based Practice.
Abstract: This issue of FOCUS written by Herb M. Turner III, PhD and Chad Nye, PhD, highlights the work of the Campbell Collaboration (C2) and the development of systematic reviews of research evidence.
Evidence: 1 - Author(s) opinion
Consumer Orientation: C - No data
Readability: III - High (Grade 12 or above)
Zaza, S., Carande-Kulis, V. G., Sleet, D. A., Sosin, D. M., Elder, R. W., Shults, R. A., et al. (2001). Methods for conducting systematic reviews of the evidence of effectiveness and economic efficiency of interventions to reduce injuries to motor vehicle occupants. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(4), (Suppl. 1), 23-30.
Abstract: Zaza et al. describe a step-by-step process for completing systematic reviews. To explain their methods, the authors used the topic of the economic efficiency of interventions that reduce injuries of motor vehicle occupants. The article describes selection of team members, development of a conceptual approach to identifying interventions to be included in the review, criteria for selection of studies, search strategy, assessing the quality of the studies, and recommendations as well as implications for future research. The authors also noted collection of barriers and ancillary data that may explain the findings.
Evidence: 1 - Author(s) opinion
Consumer Orientation: C - No data
Readability: III - High (Grade 12 or above)
Additional Articles
NCDDR. (2008). Getting published and having an impact: turning rehabilitation research results into gold. FOCUS Technical Brief (19).
Full-text: http://www.ncddr.org/kt/products/focus/focus19/
NCDDR. (2009). The use of CIRRIE's database of international rehabilitation research in conducting systematic reviews. FOCUS Technical Brief (23).
