Hướng Dẫn Systematic review meaning Đầy đủ Chi tiết

Thủ Thuật Hướng dẫn Systematic review meaning Đầy đủ Chi Tiết

Bạn đang tìm kiếm từ khóa Systematic review meaning Đầy đủ được Update vào lúc : 2022-12-25 13:47:00 . Với phương châm chia sẻ Thủ Thuật Hướng dẫn trong nội dung bài viết một cách Chi Tiết 2022. Nếu sau khi tìm hiểu thêm Post vẫn ko hiểu thì hoàn toàn có thể lại Comments ở cuối bài để Mình lý giải và hướng dẫn lại nha.

You đang tìm kiếm từ khóa Systematic review meaning được Cập Nhật vào lúc : 2022-12-25 13:47:06 . Với phương châm chia sẻ Kinh Nghiệm về trong nội dung nội dung bài viết một cách Chi Tiết 2022. Nếu sau khi đọc Post vẫn ko hiểu thì hoàn toàn hoàn toàn có thể lại phản hồi ở cuối bài để Tác giả lý giải và hướng dẫn lại nha.

Systematic reviews involve systematically searching for all available evidence, appraising the quality of the included studies, and synthesising the evidence into a usable form. They contribute to the pool of best available evidence, translating research into practice, and are powerful tools for clinicians, policymakers, and patients.1

Defining complex systematic reviews
Etymology and usage
Previous definitions
Elements of the process
Acknowledgments

To be useful for decision making, systematic reviews need to include high-quality evidence. However, there are systemic failings with the publishing, reporting, and interpretation of much of the evidence base, which undermine the findings of systematic reviews.2 3 In some cases, the evidence remains hidden from view or, when published, important outcomes are selectively reported, further hindering interpretation of reviews.4 Also, multiple interventions often have not been compared head to head, requiring more complex and indirect methods of evaluation. Finally, bestpractice guidance needs to be adaptable to real-world practice scenarios, which often requires combined information from multiple sources of evidence.5

To plug the evidence-to-practice translational gap, review methods are evolving beyond conventional what works systematic reviews. Broader forms of evidence synthesis have emerged, such as network meta-analysis, scoping reviews, realist reviews, umbrella and meta-narrative reviews, meta-synthesis, and several others.6 7 Cochrane groups have expanded, with the creation of specific methods groups to reflect the growing number of review types.

The recognition that complex clinical and policy questions require more advanced methods of evidence synthesis to answer them has led to the term complex review, which is used to cover a wide range of evolving methods. However, there is some uncertainty as to what a complex systematic review is.

Defining complex systematic reviews

There is a tried and tested method of defining scientific terms, by exploring their etymology, usages, and previous definitions, and considering the elements of which the relevant processes consist.

Etymology and usage

The word complex derives from an ancient linguistic root, PLEK, which implies weaving, giving words such as plait, pleat, pliant, and plicate. Adding the prefix com (Latin cum, meaning with) to the basic root implies interweaving of several elements, making things complicated, literally woven together. Reflecting this, complex is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as consisting of parts or elements not simply co-ordinated, but some of them involved in various degrees of subordination; complicated, involved, intricate; not easily analysed or disentangled. No other usages of the word have emerged since it entered English in this form in the 17th century.

Previous definitions

Seeking previous definitions of complex systematic reviews, we did a rapid scope of the literature, with the following results:

First, we identified a need for distinction between a systematic review of complex interventions and a complex systematic review. Petticrew and colleagues have argued that reviews of complex interventions can themselves be simple or complex, depending on the question to be answered.8 As outlined below, we argue that a complex systematic review may be designated as such for a variety of reasons, regardless of how complex the unit of analysis is (eg, the intervention(s), procedures, andtests).

We looked for definitions on the National Institute for Health Research Complex Reviews Unit website, but could not find any, although we did find a list of reasons for the increasing complexity of reviews.9

Gough and colleagues described multi-component reviews’ as a strategy for dealing with complex review questions, but we were still unable to identify an explicit definition of a complex review.10

We found a definition of a comprehensive review in the Joanna Briggs Methods Manual: A systematic review is considered to be a comprehensive systematic review when it includes two or more types of evidence, such as both qualitative and quantitative, in order to address a particular review objective.11

We identified an excellent series of articles under the banner Considering Complexity in Systematic Reviews of Interventions in The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, although we were unable to identify an explicit definition of a complex review.12

We identified a paper by Whitlock and colleagues, who described a complex review as one that evaluate(s) a number of linked clinical questions, multiple interventions or diagnostic tests, different or distinct population groups, and/or many outcomes.’13

Elements of the process

Considering how complex reviews are carried out, we propose that for a systematic review to be designated as complex, it should demonstrate exceptional aspects in two broad domains: the nature and sources of the data included in the review and the processes of synthesis involved in their interpretation. We have identified eight aspects of complex reviews that underpin these domains, described in the text below and illustrated in figure 1.

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint

Figure 1

Proposed elements of a complex systematic review.

Several of these aspects reflect the interweaving of disparate elements implied by the origin of the word complex. We suggest that a complex systematic review should primarily fulfil the following criterion:

The need for a highly skilled and multidisciplinary team to complete the review. Although the Cochrane Handbook alludes to this,14 we extend this absolute requirement by stating that: the skill mix needed to complete a complex review should include a breadth of content expertise, including end-users of the research, to shape and contextualise the relevance and implications of the review findings. The success of a complex review should depend on highly skilled methodological expertise, without which it would be impossible to complete the review.

This is the only absolute criterion. The other elements (below) are optional, but we suggest that a requirement of any complex systematic review is that any two should be included.

The use of more than one type of study design (eg, qualitative and quantitative) and more than one type of synthesis approach. Gough and colleagues describe a continuum in synthesis approaches that may, one end, use a predefined method to aggregate existing data and test a theory, or the other, use a more iterative synthesis approach and configure existing data to generate a new theory.10 A complex review may do both.

The inclusion of a large quantity of data. This could include, for example, clinical study reports (CSRs), large and highly detailed documents written for regulators as part of licensing applications for medicinal products.15 However, we are not proposing an arbitrary cut-off for what would constitute a large quantity of data. A systematic review of over 100 published randomised controlled trials might provide as much relevant data as two CSRs, each over 4000 pages long. Context is important. Instead, we propose that researchers should justify whether their review qualifies under this heading and why.

Assessment of a complete evidence development programme. This cumulative collection of data may be presented chronologically, providing greater insights into the origins and purpose of a technology. For example, combined assessment of preclinical, phase IIV studies of a technology or evidence of the development of a complex instrument or a large diagnostic tool from the horizon-scanning phase to the postmarketing phase, perhaps starting with a definition of its predicate (ie, the index molecule, instrument, or device from which all other versions and medicinal products have evolved).

Systematic inclusion of data from several different sources. Most systematic reviews source data from the existing published literature and sometimes from the grey (ie, unpublished) literature as well. However, the validity of a systematic review is threatened by the scope of the data it includes. Problems with publication bias, particularly in relation to pharmaceuticals, are well documented.4 These problems have led to calls for inclusion of data from sources other than just the aggregative summaries in the published literature.2 Including individual participant or patient data may mitigate this to some degree.16 Other sources could include regulatory or registry data, where additional information, forexample, on adverse events, may be found.17

An evaluation of an intervention in relation to the contexts in which it is set, for example, information to describe the process through which the intervention is being implemented or to explain the rationale for the choice of study design, in the light of current knowledge. Both of these types could also include timelines.

Reviews that simultaneously answer questions from different perspectives and viewpoints: societal, healthcare, funders, patients and carers, healthcare workers, andmanufacturers. These could include multiple evaluations and comparisons using different evaluation methods consistent with the different perspectives.

The use of a particular evidence synthesis method for the first time. A review of evidence synthesis methods used across the fields of nursing, healthcare science and services, and health policy found that many methods were contemporary and probably emerging, implying that more detailed descriptions and validation studies were likely to appear in future.6

Here we provide examples of systematic reviews that can justifiably be termed complex (table 1). All involved a multidisciplinary team.

View this table:

Table 1

Examples of complex systematic reviews that fit our criteria

Thus, based on etymology, usage, previous definitions, and considerations of the elements of which a complex systematic review consists, we propose the following definition:

Complex systematic reviewn.A systematic review, performed by a multidisciplinary team, consisting of multiple components, large amounts of data from different sources or different perspectives, collectively contributing more than would be expected from their individual contributions, the individual components not being easily coordinated, analysed or disentangled.

Conclusion

Systematic reviews play a pivotal role in the translation of research findings into practice and policy.18 However, the field is moving beyond traditional what works reviews to more complex reviews, which may make a greater contribution to healthcare decision making. In this commentary, we seek to advance the field by presenting a definition of a complex systematic review to provide clarity in the field and to stimulate further thought and discussion.

Acknowledgments

KRM and CH are both co-investigators of The Evidence Synthesis Working Group, which is funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research (NIHR SPCR) (Project Number 390).

References
1.
Mahtani KR

. All health researchers should begin their training by preparing least one systematic review. J R Soc Med 2022;109:2648.doi:10.1177/0141076816643954OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

2.
Heneghan C ,
Mahtani KR ,
Goldacre B , et al

. Evidence based medicine manifesto for better healthcare. BMJ 2022;357:j2973.OpenUrlFREE Full Text

3.
Ioannidis JP

. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q.. 2022;94:485514.doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12210OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

4.
Heneghan C ,
Goldacre B ,
Mahtani KR

. Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials 2022;18:122.doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1870-2OpenUrl

5.
Shaw RL ,
Larkin M ,
Flowers P

. Expanding the evidence within evidence-based healthcare: thinking about the context, acceptability and feasibility of interventions. Evid Based Med 2014;19:2013.doi:10.1136/eb-2014-101791OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

6.
Tricco AC ,
Soobiah C ,
Antony J , et al

. A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. J Clin Epidemiol 2022;73:1928.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.030OpenUrl

7.
Grant MJ ,
Booth A

. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 2009;26:91108.OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

8.
Petticrew M ,
Anderson L ,
Elder R , et al

. Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:120914.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.004OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

9.NIHR CRSU – Complex Reviews Support Unit. ://.nihrcrsu.org/ (accessed 23 Jan 2022).
10.
Gough D ,
Thomas J ,
Oliver S

. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev 2012;1:28.doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

11.Joanna Briggs Institute. Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual 2015, 2015. ://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf
12.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Considering Complexity in Systematic Reviews of Intervention. ://.jclinepi/content/jce-considering-complexity-in-systematic-reviews-of-intervention (accessed 24 Jan 2022).
13.
Whitlock EP ,
Lin JS ,
Chou R , et al

. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:77682.doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00010OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

14.
Higgins JPT ,
Green S

. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. (updated Mar 2011).

15.
Doshi P ,
Jefferson T

. Clinical study reports of randomised controlled trials: an exploratory review of previously confidential industry reports. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002496.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002496OpenUrlPubMed

16.
Tierney JF ,
Vale C ,
Riley R , et al

. Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: Guidance on Their Use. PLoS Med 2015;12:e1001855.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001855OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

17.Cochrane Library. Editorial – Regulatory agencies hold the key to improving Cochrane Reviews of drugs. ://.cochranelibrary/editorial/10.1002/14651858.ED000098 (accessed 25 Mar 2022).
18.
Whitty CJ

. What makes an academic paper useful for health policy? BMC Med 2015;13:301.doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0544-8OpenUrl

19.
OMara-Eves A ,
Brunton G ,
McDaid D , et al

. Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis. NIHR Journals Library: Southampton, UK, 2015.

20.
Greenhalgh T ,
Robert G ,
Macfarlane F , et al

. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q.. 2004;82:581629.doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.xOpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

21.
Perel P ,
Roberts I ,
Sena E , et al

. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ 2007;334:197.doi:10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.BEOpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

22.
Jefferson T ,
Jones M ,
Doshi P , et al

. Oseltamivir for influenza in adults and children: systematic review of clinical study reports and summary of regulatory comments. BMJ 2014;348:g2545.doi:10.1136/bmj.g2545OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

23.
Baxter S ,
Johnson M ,
Blank L , et al

. Non-pharmacological treatments for stuttering in children and adults: a systematic review and evaluation of clinical effectiveness, and exploration of barriers to successful outcomes. Health Technol Assess 2022;20:1302.doi:10.3310/hta20020OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

Reply

2

0

Chia sẻ

Share Link Download Systematic review meaning miễn phí

Bạn vừa tìm hiểu thêm tài liệu Với Một số hướng dẫn một cách rõ ràng hơn về Clip Systematic review meaning tiên tiến và phát triển và tăng trưởng nhất và ShareLink Tải Systematic review meaning Free.

Thảo Luận vướng mắc về Systematic review meaning

Nếu sau khi đọc nội dung nội dung bài viết Systematic review meaning vẫn chưa hiểu thì hoàn toàn hoàn toàn có thể lại Comments ở cuối bài để Mình lý giải và hướng dẫn lại nha

#Systematic #review #meaning

Video Systematic review meaning Đầy đủ ?

Bạn vừa tìm hiểu thêm tài liệu Với Một số hướng dẫn một cách rõ ràng hơn về Video Systematic review meaning Đầy đủ tiên tiến và phát triển nhất

Chia Sẻ Link Tải Systematic review meaning Đầy đủ miễn phí

Hero đang tìm một số trong những Chia Sẻ Link Cập nhật Systematic review meaning Đầy đủ Free.

Thảo Luận vướng mắc về Systematic review meaning Đầy đủ

Nếu sau khi đọc nội dung bài viết Systematic review meaning Đầy đủ vẫn chưa hiểu thì hoàn toàn có thể lại Comment ở cuối bài để Mình lý giải và hướng dẫn lại nha
#Systematic #review #meaning #Đầy #đủ