Systematic Reviews By Jonathan Tsun & Ilona Blee.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Katrina Abuabara, MD, MA1 Esther E Freeman MD, PhD2;
Advertisements

What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic.
How would you explain the smoking paradox. Smokers fair better after an infarction in hospital than non-smokers. This apparently disagrees with the view.
Systematic Reviews Dr Sharon Mickan Centre for Evidence-based Medicine
Meta-analysis: summarising data for two arm trials and other simple outcome studies Steff Lewis statistician.
Critical Reading VTS 22/04/09. “How to Read a Paper”. Series of articles by Trisha Greenhalgh - published in the BMJ - also available as a book from BMJ.
Critical Appraisal: Epidemiology 101 POS Lecture Series April 28, 2004.
The Bahrain Branch of the UK Cochrane Centre In Collaboration with Reyada Training & Management Consultancy, Dubai-UAE Cochrane Collaboration and Systematic.
Reading the Dental Literature
Introduction to Critical Appraisal : Quantitative Research
1.A 33 year old female patient admitted to the ICU with confirmed pulmonary embolism. It was noted that she had elevated serum troponin level. Does this.
Statistics By Z S Chaudry. Why do I need to know about statistics ? Tested in AKT To understand Journal articles and research papers.
Statistics for Health Care
By Dr. Ahmed Mostafa Assist. Prof. of anesthesia & I.C.U. Evidence-based medicine.
Critical Appraisal of an Article by Dr. I. Selvaraj B. SC. ,M. B. B. S
Enhanced recovery meta-analysis Kirsty Cattle Research Registrar.
Study Designs By Az and Omar.
Quantitative Research
Critical appraisal Systematic Review กิตติพันธุ์ ฤกษ์เกษม ภาควิชาศัลยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่
Are the results valid? Was the validity of the included studies appraised?
Their contribution to knowledge Morag Heirs. Research Fellow Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York PhD student (NIHR funded) Health.
Multiple Choice Questions for discussion
OKU 9 Chapter 15: ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH Brian E. Walczak.
Critical Reading. Critical Appraisal Definition: assessment of methodological quality If you are deciding whether a paper is worth reading – do so on.
EBD for Dental Staff Seminar 2: Core Critical Appraisal Dominic Hurst evidenced.qm.
Systematic Reviews Professor Kate O’Donnell. Reviews Reviews (or overviews) are a drawing together of material to make a case. These may, or may not,
Understanding real research 2.
Systematic Reviews.
 Is there a comparison? ◦ Are the groups really comparable?  Are the differences being reported real? ◦ Are they worth reporting? ◦ How much confidence.
EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE Effectiveness of therapy Ross Lawrenson.
How to Analyze Systematic Reviews: practical session Akbar Soltani.MD. Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) Shariati Hospital
Evidence Based Medicine Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Ross Lawrenson.
Understanding real research 4. Randomised controlled trials.
EBCP. Random vs Systemic error Random error: errors in measurement that lead to measured values being inconsistent when repeated measures are taken. Ie:
This material was developed by Oregon Health & Science University, funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the National Coordinator.
Appraising Randomized Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews October 12, 2012 Mary H. Palmer, PhD, RN, C, FAAN, AGSF University of North Carolina at Chapel.
Meta-analysis and “statistical aggregation” Dave Thompson Dept. of Biostatistics and Epidemiology College of Public Health, OUHSC Learning to Practice.
Evidence-Based Medicine Presentation [Insert your name here] [Insert your designation here] [Insert your institutional affiliation here] Department of.
Wipanee Phupakdi, MD September 15, Overview  Define EBM  Learn steps in EBM process  Identify parts of a well-built clinical question  Discuss.
Evidence-Based Medicine – Definitions and Applications 1 Component 2 / Unit 5 Health IT Workforce Curriculum Version 1.0 /Fall 2010.
Critical Reading. Critical Appraisal Definition: assessment of methodological quality If you are deciding whether a paper is worth reading – do so on.
Levels of evidence and Interpretation of a systematic review
Making epidemiological evidence more accessible using pictures Rod Jackson Updated November 09.
Study designs. Kate O’Donnell General Practice & Primary Care.
Objectives  Identify the key elements of a good randomised controlled study  To clarify the process of meta analysis and developing a systematic review.
CAT 5: How to Read an Article about a Systematic Review Maribeth Chitkara, MD Rachel Boykan, MD.
Module 3 Finding the Evidence: Pre-appraised Literature.
Sifting through the evidence Sarah Fradsham. Types of Evidence Primary Literature Observational studies Case Report Case Series Case Control Study Cohort.
PTP 661 EVIDENCE ABOUT INTERVENTIONS CRITICALLY APPRAISE THE QUALITY AND APPLICABILITY OF AN INTERVENTION RESEARCH STUDY Min Huang, PT, PhD, NCS.
116 (27%) 185 (43%) 49 (11%) How to critically appraise a systematic review Igho J. Onakpoya MD MSc University of Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
Finding, Evaluating, and Presenting Evidence Sharon E. Lock, PhD, ARNP NUR 603 Spring, 2001.
LIBRARY SERVICES Evaluating the evidence Paula Funnell Senior Academic Liaison Librarian (Medicine and Dentistry)
Compliance Original Study Design Randomised Surgical care Medical care.
EVALUATING u After retrieving the literature, you have to evaluate or critically appraise the evidence for its validity and applicability to your patient.
Copyright © 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 18 Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Research Design Evidence Based Medicine Concepts and Glossary.
Course: Research in Biomedicine and Health III Seminar 5: Critical assessment of evidence.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: when and how to do them Andrew Smith Royal Lancaster Infirmary 18 May 2015.
Critical Appraisal of a Paper Feedback. Critical Appraisal Full Reference –Authors (Surname & Abbreviations) –Year of publication –Full Title –Journal.
Introduction to General Epidemiology (2) By: Dr. Khalid El Tohami.
CRITICALLY APPRAISING EVIDENCE Lisa Broughton, PhD, RN, CCRN.
EBM R1張舜凱.
Critically Appraising a Medical Journal Article
Brady Et Al., "sequential compression device compliance in postoperative obstetrics and gynecology patients", obstetrics and gynecology, vol. 125, no.
NURS3030H NURSING RESEARCH IN PRACTICE MODULE 7 ‘Systematic Reviews’’
Overview of the GRADE approach – selected slides
Critical Appraisal Dr Samantha Rutherford
Improved Patient Outcomes Best Available Clinical Evidence Patient’s
EAST GRADE course 2019 Introduction to Meta-Analysis
What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic. Ask What is a review?
Presentation transcript:

Systematic Reviews By Jonathan Tsun & Ilona Blee

What is a systematic review? Define it!  Results from similar randomized trials are brought together (“synthesized”) to help identify which forms of health care work, which don’t work, and which are harmful.  This combination of randomized trials needs to be done in a systematic way – hence it is called a systematic review  The methods used include steps to minimize bias in the process – this is done by including all of the relevant studies  What are the TWO main types of bias? 1. Selection 2. Information

What are the limitations of systematic reviews?  “Synthesis” of results from different studies can oversimplify important distinctions  Different conclusions can be reached depending on the wording of the “ review question ”  For example compare these two questions: to be able to know whether we can predict a problem and intervene early vs. to identify the best ways of diagnosing/identifying problems  Reviews can make it difficult for doctors to apply the results of the review to every situation they come across  over-generalisation, medicine isn’t an exact science!  Findings from systematic reviews aren’t always consistent with other findings of large-scale high quality trials

What is a meta-analysis?  When the results of individual studies are combined to produce an overall statistic.  This can be done without a systematic review by combining results from more than one trial  What is the disadvantage of this?  Without the systematic review, there will be bias present if there is any from that study  This can lead to clinically misleading results!!!

Forest plot – what is it?  A graphical representation of a meta analysis, illustrating the effect sizes of individual studies and the meta-analysis as a whole.  What is “effect size”?  Quantitative measure of the strength of a phenomenon (e.g. correlation between 2 variables, etc)  It will have a list of the studies included in the meta analysis

 What is the line at x=0 called? What does it indicate?  Line of No Effect  If a study’s confidence interval line crosses the Line of No Effect, it demonstrates that at the given level of confidence, the study’s effect size does not differ from no effect. (AKA the study’s findings are not significant)  What does the size of the green square indicate?  It is a graphical representation of the weight of that particular study in the meta-analysis.

 What do the lines sticking out from the green boxes indicate?  They are graphical representations of the size of confidence intervals.  What does the diamond represent?  The effect size of the meta-analysis as a whole  What do the 2 horizontal points of the diamond indicate? What does it mean if it crosses x=0?  The 2 horizontal points indicate the confidence interval for the combined data  If it crosses the line of no effect... Answer is below in the notes.

Funnel Plot – what are they/ what do they do?  They assess whether the results of a systematic review have been influenced by “ publication bias ”  Publication bias occurs when the publication of research results depends on their nature and direction  eg. Positive results are more likely to be published than negative studies and can mean systematic reviews end up biased towards positive results  If the plot is symmetric, this means that there is probably no publication bias  If the plot is asymmetric, this means that publication bias is likely

Symmetrical = no publication bias! Asymmetrical = publication bias likely

If we were to critically appraise a study, what would we ask? (3) 1. Is the study valid? 2. Are the results reliable? 3. Can I generalise from this study to my workplace/own practice? OR will the results help locally?  Why is critical appraisal important?  Ensures that relevant articles contribute towards patient care  Tries to ensure that bias is minimised  Ensures that the results from a study can be used in real life

An example of evidence- based medicine!  CURB-65  This is something you should have covered in CBL and comes up in exams/ on the wards etc.  What does it stand for?  C onfusion  U rea levels of >7mmol/L  R espiratory rate >30 breaths/min  B lood pressure <90mmHg systolic over <60mmHg diastolic  Age > 65 years  You get a point for each of these

What does PRISMA stand for? P referred R eporting I tems for S ystematic reviews & M eta- A nalyses In other words, helps authors report the results of a systematic review More at: statement.org/ statement.org/

Using systematic reviews!

Where do we search for systematic reviews? 1. PICO !  Population/patient problem, intervention, comparator, outcome 2. Cochrane library 3. Medline  What is PICO used for?  Asking a “good” question  What are the steps for using PICO/how do we use PICO?  How to explain this..

Don’t forget to learn your equations and calculations!  Weighted mean difference:  Mean(g1) – Mean(g2)  Standardised mean difference:  Mean(g1) – Mean(g2) pooled sd  Relative risk:   Number needed to treat (NNT):   Risk Ratio:  Be able to interpret risk ratio quite quickly  E.g. RR = 2  Means the intervention outcome is twice as likely compared to the control outcome  E.g. RR = 0.5  Means the intervention outcome is half as likely compared to the control outcome

What is bias?  Any systematic error in an epidemiological study which either underestimates or overestimates the parameter of interest because of a deficiency in the design or execution of the study. SelectionInformation Sampling biasRecall bias Allocation biasObserver/interviewer/reporting bias Responder biasSocial desirability bias Attrition bias Publication bias Healthy worker effect

Hierarchy of evidence! 1. Systematic reviews – always at the top over anything ever because of the way it minimises bias!  Meta-analyses  Non meta-analytic reviews 2. Experimental studies  Randomised controlled trials  Controlled trials 3.Observational studies  Cohort studies  Case-controlled studies 4.Descriptive studies  Cross-sectional designs What order to the study designs go in?

Match the question with the type of evidence needed! QuestionEvidence How effective is this preventative intervention? RCT How effective is this therapy? RCT How effective is this screening/diagnostic tool? RCT Is this a causative factor for this disease?Cohort or case-controlled studies What is the prognosis for this?Cohort or case-controlled studies How do patients feel about their condition?Qualitative experimental studies How common is this condition?Cross-sectional studies How cost-effective is this intervention?RCT

The end!  Any questions?