Chapter I: introduction

Jackie Chandler, M Cumpston, J Thomas, JPT Higgins, JJ Deeks, MJ Clarke

2019-01-01

Abstract:Systematic reviews seek to collate evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. They aim to minimize bias by using explicit, systematic methods documented in advance with a protocol.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Systematic reviews of the literature: an introduction to current methods

Romina Brignardello-Petersen,Nancy Santesso,Gordon H Guyatt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae232

2024-07-20

American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract:Abstract Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis in which authors develop explicit eligibility criteria, collect all the available studies that meet these criteria, and summarize results using reproducible methods that minimize biases and errors. Systematic reviews serve different purposes and use a different methodology than other types of evidence synthesis that include narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and overviews of reviews. Systematic reviews can address questions regarding effects of interventions or exposures, diagnostic properties of tests, and prevalence or prognosis of diseases. All rigorous systematic reviews have common processes that include: 1) determining the question and eligibility criteria, including a priori specification of subgroup hypotheses 2) searching for evidence and selecting studies, 3) abstracting data and assessing risk of bias of the included studies, 4) summarizing the data for each outcome of interest, whenever possible using meta-analyses, and 5) assessing the certainty of the evidence and drawing conclusions. There are several tools that can guide and facilitate the systematic review process, but methodological and content expertise are always necessary.

public, environmental & occupational health
Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions

Deborah J. Cook

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006

IF: 39.2

1997-03-01

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:Systematic reviews can help practitioners keep abreast of the medical literature by summarizing large bodies of evidence and helping to explain differences among studies on the same question. 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. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several primary studies. Because the review process itself (like any other type of research) is subject to bias, a useful review requires clear reporting of information obtained using rigorous methods. Used increasingly to inform medical decision making, plan future research agendas, and establish clinical policy, systematic reviews may strengthen the link between best research evidence and optimal health care.

medicine, general & internal
Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Zachary Munn,Micah D. J. Peters,Cindy Stern,Catalin Tufanaru,Alexa McArthur,Edoardo Aromataris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

2018-11-19

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:<h3 class="a-plus-plus">Abstract</h3> <span class="a-plus-plus abstract-section id-a-sec1"> <h3 class="a-plus-plus">Background</h3> <p class="a-plus-plus">Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate.</p> </span> <span class="a-plus-plus abstract-section id-a-sec2"> <h3 class="a-plus-plus">Results</h3> <p class="a-plus-plus">Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions.</p> </span> <span class="a-plus-plus abstract-section id-a-sec3"> <h3 class="a-plus-plus">Conclusions</h3> <p class="a-plus-plus">Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.</p> </span>

health care sciences & services
Selecting and Appraising Studies for a Systematic Review

M O Meade,W S Richardson,Maureen O. Meade

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-7-199710010-00005

IF: 39.2

1997-10-01

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:After thoroughly searching the potentially relevant literature for a systematic review, reviewers face the sequential tasks of selecting studies for inclusion and appraising these studies. Methodical, impartial, and reliable strategies are necessary for these two tasks because systematic reviews are retrospective exercises and are therefore prone to both bias and random error. To plan for study selection, reviewers begin with a focused clinical question and choose selection criteria that reflect this question. A detailed selection protocol that specifies the study designs and publication status of articles to be included is often helpful. Selection criteria are itemized on customized forms and are used to examine each potentially relevant primary study, usually by two different reviewers. In planning the critical appraisal of included studies, reviewers decide which clinical and methodologic study features require documentation. After choosing methods for evaluating study quality, reviewers construct customized appraisal forms and an explicit protocol for the actual evaluation. Some of the techniques commonly used to minimize the potential for error in study appraisal include duplicate, independent examination; blinding to study results and other identifying features of each article; and correspondence with study authors to clarify issues. Ultimately, primary studies should be selected, appraised, and reported in sufficient detail to allow readers to judge the applicability of the review to clinical practice and to clarify the strength of the inferences that can be drawn from the review.

medicine, general & internal
How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature

Debajyoti Pati,Lesa N. Lorusso

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586717747384

2017-12-28

Abstract:This article provides a step-by-step approach to conducting and reporting systematic literature reviews (SLRs) in the domain of healthcare design and discusses some of the key quality issues associated with SLRs. SLR, as the name implies, is a systematic way of collecting, critically evaluating, integrating, and presenting findings from across multiple research studies on a research question or topic of interest. SLR provides a way to assess the quality level and magnitude of existing evidence on a question or topic of interest. It offers a broader and more accurate level of understanding than a traditional literature review. A systematic review adheres to standardized methodologies/guidelines in systematic searching, filtering, reviewing, critiquing, interpreting, synthesizing, and reporting of findings from multiple publications on a topic/domain of interest. The Cochrane Collaboration is the most well-known and widely respected global organization producing SLRs within the healthcare field and a standard to follow for any researcher seeking to write a transparent and methodologically sound SLR. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), like the Cochrane Collaboration, was created by an international network of health-based collaborators and provides the framework for SLR to ensure methodological rigor and quality. The PRISMA statement is an evidence-based guide consisting of a checklist and flowchart intended to be used as tools for authors seeking to write SLR and meta-analyses.
"How-to": scoping review?

Danielle Pollock,Catrin Evans,Romy Menghao Jia,Lyndsay Alexander,Dawid Pieper,Érica Brandão de Moraes,Micah D J Peters,Andrea C Tricco,Hanan Khalil,Christina M Godfrey,Ashrita Saran,Fiona Campbell,Zachary Munn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111572

2024-10-18

Abstract:Background and objective: Scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis that aims to identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, within or across a defined context or contexts. Scoping reviews can contribute to clinical practice guideline development, policy making, reduce research waste by eliminating duplication of research effort, and be a precursor to a systematic review or inform further primary research. This article aims to provide a brief introduction of how to conduct and report scoping reviews. Study design and setting: We will discuss the role and value of scoping reviews within the evidence synthesis ecosystem, the differences and similarities between these reviews and other types of evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews, mapping reviews, evidence and gap maps, and overviews, and how to overcome common challenges often associated in the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of scoping reviews. Results: Scoping reviews have a role in the evidence ecosystem; however, we need to acknowledge their challenges. Conclusion: Scoping reviews are a popular form of evidence synthesis, and further research is needed to provide clarity of current methodological challenges.
Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis

A K Akobeng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2004.058230

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. Important issues that need to be considered when appraising a systematic review or meta-analysis are outlined, and some of the terms used in the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses--such as odds ratio, relative risk, confidence interval, and the forest plot--are introduced.
Systematic reviews: Not always a pain

Alexandra E Fogarty,Aaron Conger,Taylor Burnham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpm.2022.100128

2022-08-15

Abstract:Systematic reviews analyze the evidence surrounding a specific intervention within a population. High quality systematic reviews can help clinicians and policymakers accurately understand a treatment intervention. This article outlines the basic principles of systematic review development, including assembling a research team, defining the research question, publishing a protocol, designing and executing the search, study selection, extracting the data, assessing risk of bias, synthesizing the data and conducting a certainty assessment. In addition, we will address common pitfalls and highlight special considerations for the field of interventional pain medicine. Understanding systematic review methodology will help investigators improve their primary research and in turn, better primary literature will improve the value of high quality reviews.
Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics

Danielle Pollock,Ellen L. Davies,Micah D. J. Peters,Andrea C. Tricco,Lyndsay Alexander,Patricia McInerney,Christina M. Godfrey,Hanan Khalil,Zachary Munn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14743

IF: 3.057

2021-02-04

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Aim</h3><p>The aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best‐practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Design</h3><p>Discussion Paper.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Data Sources</h3><p>Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA‐ScR).</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Implications for nursing and midwifery</h3><p>Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusion</h3><p>This study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Impact</h3><p>With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.</p></section>

nursing
Developing and refining the methods for a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems

John N Lavis,Michael G Wilson,Kaelan A Moat,Amanda C Hammill,Jennifer A Boyko,Jeremy M Grimshaw,Signe Flottorp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-13-10

2015-02-25

Abstract:Background: Policymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results. Methods: To address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing 'added value' to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages. Results: The taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The 'one-stop shop', called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. Conclusions: Policymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews.
Correctly classifying cohort studies versus case series in systematic reviews and implications for evidence-based decision making

Melissa S. Ma,Victoria J. Shi,Eric Koza,Misha Haq,Areeba Ahmed,Kelly A. Reynolds,Emily Poon,Murad Alam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-024-03458-3

2024-11-08

Archives of Dermatological Research

Abstract:The strength of a systematic review hinges in large part on the quality of evidence it appraises. Observational studies, including cohort studies and case series, are positioned lower on the hierarchy of evidence, with cohort studies typically higher than case series. The often subtle differences between these study designs may lead to misclassification and can impact the strength of recommendations derived from such data. This manuscript offers an approach to delineate the differences between cohort studies and case series and provides clinical examples of these subtleties. By providing a simple approach for distinguishing cohort studies from case series, this manuscript seeks to assist researchers performing systematic reviews.

dermatology
Conducting Systematic Reviews of Intervention Questions I: Writing the Review Protocol, Formulating the Question and Searching the Literature

A. M. O'Connor,K. M. Anderson,C. K. Goodell,J. M. Sargeant

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12125

2014-06-01

Zoonoses and Public Health

Abstract:This article is the fourth of six articles addressing systematic reviews in animal agriculture and veterinary medicine. Previous articles in the series have introduced systematic reviews, discussed study designs and hierarchies of evidence, and provided details on conducting randomized controlled trials, a common design for use in systematic reviews. This article describes development of a review protocol and the first two steps in a systematic review: formulating a review question, and searching the literature for relevant research. The emphasis is on systematic reviews of questions related to interventions. The review protocol is developed prior to conducting the review and specifies the plan for the conduct of the review, identifies the roles and responsibilities of the review team and provides structured definitions related to the review question. For intervention questions, the review question should be defined by the PICO components: population, intervention, comparison and outcome(s). The literature search is designed to identify all potentially relevant original research that may address the question. Search terms related to some or all of the PICO components are entered into literature databases, and searches for unpublished literature also are conducted. All steps of the literature search are documented to provide transparent reporting of the process.

veterinary sciences,infectious diseases
Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

Kat Kolaski,Lynne Romeiser Logan,John P A Ioannidis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.23.00077

2023-06-07

Abstract:» Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.» A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.» Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.
The importance of systematic reviews

Shrikant I. Bangdiwala

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2024.2388484

2024-08-26

International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion

Abstract:To advance the science and practice of injury control and safety promotion, researchers conduct studies that provide valuable information on the complex relationships between exposures and outcomes of interest. Most individual studies are often not considered as providing the definitive universal answer to the research question of interest, but, if well designed, properly conducted, analysed, and interpreted, any research study could contribute to the body of evidence on a particular research question.

public, environmental & occupational health
[Evidence syntheses in public health: An overview]

Benjamin Barnes,Maike Buchmann,Rebekka Mumm,Enno Nowossadeck,Diana Peitz,Franziska Prütz,Benjamin Wachtler,Antje Wienecke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2022.09.003

Abstract:Background: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a high demand for rapid evidence syntheses to answer urgent public health questions. This article provides an overview of different types of reviews for public health questions and a synthesis of existing recommendations for the preparation of reviews. The aim is to support the planning of one's own review and the critical evaluation of published reviews. Methods: The basis of this summary is an extensive search for guidelines and recommendations for different review types. Furthermore, internal journal clubs were held to determine knowledge needs and to critically discuss the various review types. Relating to the dissemination of results, fact sheets were developed for the individual review types including the most important information, prerequisites and work steps, as well as a decision tree for identifying the appropriate review type for the respective question. Results: Of the review types identified, Systematic, Rapid, Scoping, Umbrella, and Narrative Reviews were considered in more detail because they are particularly relevant to public health issues. Together with scoping and umbrella reviews, systematic reviews have the highest resource requirements due to the demands for extensive, systematic evidence synthesis and reproducibility. Rapid methods can accelerate the review process, for example by a very narrowly formulated question, a limited literature search, or the execution of certain steps by one instead of two persons. Discussion: Systematic Reviews may be considered as the gold standard, but they were developed primarily for clinical questions relating to interventions. This article, however, focusses on review types that consider the diversity of questions as well as the predominant use of quantitative methods in the field of public health. The fact sheets developed and the decision tree should enable low-threshold access to reviews while linking the perspectives of research and resource planning. They complement existing guidelines and recommendations. Conclusion: To answer the diverse spectrum of public health questions, various types of reviews with various requirements and approaches are available. Given this diversity, a systematic introduction can be helpful for researchers planning or assessing a review.
Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide

Amy Johnston,Shannon E Kelly,Shu-Ching Hsieh,Becky Skidmore,George A Wells,Shannon E. Kelly,George A. Wells

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.030

IF: 7.407

2019-04-01

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are unique knowledge syntheses that require tailored approaches to, and greater subjectivity in, design and execution compared with other SRs in clinical epidemiology. We provide review authors structured direction on how to design and conduct methodologically rigorous SRs of CPGs.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A guidance paper outlining suggested methodology for conducting all stages of an SR of CPGs. We present concrete examples of approaches used by published reviews, including a case exemplar demonstrating how this methodology was applied to our own SR of CPGs.RESULTS: Review context and the unique characteristics of CPGs as research syntheses or clinical guidance statements must be considered in all aspects of review design and conduct. Researchers should develop a "PICAR" statement to help form and focus on the research question(s) and eligibility criteria, assess CPG quality using a validated appraisal tool, and extract, analyze, and summarize data in a way that is cogent and transparent.CONCLUSION: SRs of CPGs can be used to systematically identify, assess, and summarize the current state of guidance on a clinical topic. These types of reviews often require methodological tailoring to ensure that their objectives and timelines are effectively and efficiently addressed; however, they should all meet the criteria for an SR, follow a rigorous methodological approach, and adhere to transparent reporting practices.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services
How to write a Cochrane systematic review

LORNA K HENDERSON,JONATHAN C CRAIG,NARELLE S WILLIS,DAVID TOVEY,ANGELA C WEBSTER

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1797.2010.01380.x

2010-08-27

Nephrology

Abstract:The Cochrane Collaboration is a global network whose aim is to improve health-care decision making through systematic reviews of the effects of health-care interventions. Cochrane systematic reviews are published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews within The Cochrane Library ( http://www.thecochranelibrary.com), and regularly updated as new evidence arises. Cochrane Reviews are undertaken by teams of volunteer authors, who have access to free training resources, reference texts and software for preparing and maintaining their review. Here we aim to describe the steps involved to undertake a new or update an existing Cochrane Review.

urology & nephrology
The ABC of systematic literature review: the basic methodological guidance for beginners

Hayrol Azril Mohamed Shaffril,Samsul Farid Samsuddin,Asnarulkhadi Abu Samah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01059-6

2020-10-23

Abstract:<p class="a-plus-plus">There is a need for more methodological-based articles on systematic literature review (SLR) for non-health researchers to address issues related to the lack of methodological references in SLR and less suitability of existing methodological guidance. With that, this study presented a beginner's guide to basic methodological guides and key points to perform SLR, especially for those from non-health related background. For that, a total of 75 articles that passed the minimum quality were retrieved using systematic searching strategies. Seven main points of SLR were discussed, namely (1) the development and validation of the review protocol/publication standard/reporting standard/guidelines, (2) the formulation of research questions, (3) systematic searching strategies, (4) quality appraisal, (5) data extraction, (6) data synthesis, and (7) data demonstration.</p>

English Else
How to Write a Systematic Review

Joshua D. Harris,Carmen E. Quatman,M.M. Manring,Robert A. Siston,David C. Flanigan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513497567

IF: 4.8

2013-08-07

The American Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract:Background: The role of evidence-based medicine in sports medicine and orthopaedic surgery is rapidly growing. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are also proliferating in the medical literature. Purpose: To provide the outline necessary for a practitioner to properly understand and/or conduct a systematic review for publication in a sports medicine journal. Study Design: Review. Methods: The steps of a successful systematic review include the following: identification of an unanswered answerable question; explicit definitions of the investigation’s participant(s), intervention(s), comparison(s), and outcome(s); utilization of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines and PROSPERO registration; thorough systematic data extraction; and appropriate grading of the evidence and strength of the recommendations. Results: An outline to understand and conduct a systematic review is provided, and the difference between meta-analyses and systematic reviews is described. The steps necessary to perform a systematic review are fully explained, including the study purpose, search methodology, data extraction, reporting of results, identification of bias, and reporting of the study’s main findings. Conclusion: Systematic reviews or meta-analyses critically appraise and formally synthesize the best existing evidence to provide a statement of conclusion that answers specific clinical questions. Readers and reviewers, however, must recognize that the quality and strength of recommendations in a review are only as strong as the quality of studies that it analyzes. Thus, great care must be used in the interpretation of bias and extrapolation of the review’s findings to translation to clinical practice. Without advanced education on the topic, the reader may follow the steps discussed herein to perform a systematic review.
The joanna briggs institute critical appraisal tools use in systematicreviews:Analytic study

Ying Gu,Huiwen Zhang,Yingfeng Zhou,Yan Hu,Weijie Xing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16821/j.cnki.hsjx.2018.05.005

2018-01-01

Abstract:The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI)is an international,membership based research and development organization at the University of Adelaide.The Institute specializes in promoting and supporting evidence- based healthcare by providing access to resources for professionals in nursing,midwifery,medicine,and allied health.In November 2016,the institute developed 13 critical appraisal tools for systematic reviews.This article focused on in-troducing the critical appraisal tool for analytical study including cohort study and case control study.The tools can help researcher evaluate the methodological quality of analytical study from sampling,identification of exposure, control of confounding factors,follow-up,and measurement of outcomes.

Chapter I: introduction

Systematic reviews of the literature: an introduction to current methods

Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Selecting and Appraising Studies for a Systematic Review

How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature

"How-to": scoping review?

Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis

Systematic reviews: Not always a pain

Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics

Developing and refining the methods for a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems

Correctly classifying cohort studies versus case series in systematic reviews and implications for evidence-based decision making

Conducting Systematic Reviews of Intervention Questions I: Writing the Review Protocol, Formulating the Question and Searching the Literature

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

The importance of systematic reviews

[Evidence syntheses in public health: An overview]

Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide

How to write a Cochrane systematic review

The ABC of systematic literature review: the basic methodological guidance for beginners

How to Write a Systematic Review

The joanna briggs institute critical appraisal tools use in systematicreviews:Analytic study