R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Systematic Review An Introduction.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
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.
Advertisements

Protocol Development.
Participation Requirements for a Guideline Panel Co-Chair.
Introducing... Reproduced and modified from a presentation produced by Zoë Debenham from the original presentation created by Kate Light, Cochrane Trainer.
Appraisal of Literature. Task 4 The task requires that you:  Obtain a piece of literature from a journal, book or internet source. The literature should.
Secondary Data Analysis: Systematic Reviews & Associated Databases
Developing a Systematic Review Fiona Morgan. STEP 1 Develop a protocol.
Student Learning Development, TCD1 Systematic Approaches to Literature Reviewing Dr Tamara O’Connor Student Learning Development Trinity College Dublin.
Systematic Approaches to Literature Reviewing
Reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA
Mapping Studies – Why and How Andy Burn. Resources The idea of employing evidence-based practices in software engineering was proposed in (Kitchenham.
8. Evidence-based management Step 3: Critical appraisal of studies
Conducting systematic reviews for development of clinical guidelines 8 August 2013 Professor Mike Clarke
Undertaking Systematic Literature Reviews By Dr. Luke Pittaway Institute for Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development.
European collaboration to identify reports of controlled trials in general and specialized health care journals published in Western Europe Gerd Antes.
Critical appraisal of the literature Michael Ferenczi Head of Year 4 Head of Molecular Medicine Section, National Heart and Lung Institute.
15 de Abril de A Meta-Analysis is a review in which bias has been reduced by the systematic identification, appraisal, synthesis and statistical.
Accessing Sources Of Evidence For Practice Introduction To Databases Karen Smith Department of Health Sciences University of York.
Michelle Henley, MLS San Francisco General Hospital Bethany Myers, MLIS UCLA Louise M. Darling Biomedical Library.
Critical appraisal Systematic Review กิตติพันธุ์ ฤกษ์เกษม ภาควิชาศัลยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่
Developing Research Proposal Systematic Review Mohammed TA, Omar Ph.D. PT Rehabilitation Health Science.
Making all research results publically available: the cry of systematic reviewers.
Their contribution to knowledge Morag Heirs. Research Fellow Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York PhD student (NIHR funded) Health.
Reading Scientific Papers Shimae Soheilipour
Systematic Approaches to Literature Reviewing. The Literature Review ? “Literature reviews …… introduce a topic, summarise the main issues and provide.
Operational Obstetrics & Gynecology · Bureau of Medicine and Surgery · 2000 Slide 1.
Systematic Review of the Literature: A Novel Research Approach.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSIS. Objectives Define systematic review and meta- analysis Know how to access appraise interpret the results of a systematic.
THE COCHRANE LIBRARY ON WILEY INTERSCIENCE. Presentation Agenda Brief introduction of Evidence-Based Medicine theories The Cochrane Collaboration – origins,
Systematic Approaches to Literature Reviewing Dr. Derek Richards derek.richards [at] tcd.ie.
Systematic Reviews.
Evidence Based Medicine Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Ross Lawrenson.
Introduction to Systematic Reviews Afshin Ostovar Bushehr University of Medical Sciences Bushehr, /9/20151.
Evidence-Based Public Health Nancy Allee, MLS, MPH University of Michigan November 6, 2004.
Identifying the evidence Laura Macdonald Health Protection Scotland
Appraising Randomized Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews October 12, 2012 Mary H. Palmer, PhD, RN, C, FAAN, AGSF University of North Carolina at Chapel.
Systematic reviews to support public policy: An overview Jeff Valentine University of Louisville AfrEA – NONIE – 3ie Cairo.
Criteria to assess quality of observational studies evaluating the incidence, prevalence, and risk factors of chronic diseases Minnesota EPC Clinical Epidemiology.
Evidence-Based Medicine Presentation [Insert your name here] [Insert your designation here] [Insert your institutional affiliation here] Department of.
Evidence Based Review. Introduction to Evidence Based Reviews Systematic reviews comprehensively examine the medical literature, –seeking to identify.
Systematic Reviews Michael Chaiton Tobacco and Health: From Cells to Society September 24, 2014.
EBM Conference (Day 2). Funding Bias “He who pays, Calls the Tune” Some Facts (& Myths) Is industry research more likely to be published No Is industry.
Developing a Review Protocol. 1. Title Registration 2. Protocol 3. Complete Review Components of the C2 Review Process.
Objectives  Identify the key elements of a good randomised controlled study  To clarify the process of meta analysis and developing a systematic review.
Systematic Approaches to Literature Reviewing Dr Tamara O’Connor Student Learning Development
Zoe G. Davies Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation University of Birmingham, UK Systematic Review Protocol Development.
CAT 5: How to Read an Article about a Systematic Review Maribeth Chitkara, MD Rachel Boykan, MD.
Doing a Systematic Review Jo Hunter Linda Atkinson Oxford University Health Care Libraries 1 March 2006 Workshops in Information Skills and Electronic.
EBM --- Journal Reading Presenter :呂宥達 Date : 2005/10/27.
1 Lecture 10: Meta-analysis of intervention studies Introduction to meta-analysis Selection of studies Abstraction of information Quality scores Methods.
Systematic Synthesis of the Literature: Introduction to Meta-analysis Linda N. Meurer, MD, MPH Department of Family and Community Medicine.
Systematic Review Krit Pongpirul, MD, MPH. Johns Hopkins University.
LITERATURE REVIEW ARCHELLE JANE C. CALLEJO, PTRP,MSPH.
Search strategies and literature ‘finding’ for systematic reviews Jenny Basford, Systematic Reviews Support Librarian mEsh
Unit 11: Evaluating Epidemiologic Literature. Unit 11 Learning Objectives: 1. Recognize uniform guidelines used in preparing manuscripts for publication.
The Bahrain Branch of the UK Cochrane Centre In Collaboration with Reyada Training & Management Consultancy, Dubai-UAE Cochrane Collaboration and Systematic.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: when and how to do them Andrew Smith Royal Lancaster Infirmary 18 May 2015.
Evidence Based Practice (EBP) Riphah College of Rehabilitation Sciences(RCRS) Riphah International University Islamabad.
1 Lecture 10: Meta-analysis of intervention studies Introduction to meta-analysis Selection of studies Abstraction of information Quality scores Methods.
Primary studies Secondry studies. Primary studies Experimental studies Clinical trial studies Surveys studies.
Introduction to Systematic Reviews Afshin Ostovar 6/24/
Systematic Reviews of Evidence Introduction & Applications AEA 2014 Claire Morgan Senior Research Associate, WestEd.
Title Investigators and sites. Clinical Trial Proposal Presentation Template for open forum at the 2017 ASM.
How to Find Systematic Reviews
Critically Appraising a Medical Journal Article
MUHC Innovation Model.
Supplementary Table 1. PRISMA checklist
Lifestyle factors in the development of diabetes among African immigrants in the UK: A systematic review Alloh T. Folashade Faculty of Health and Social.
STROBE Statement revision
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:

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Systematic Review An Introduction

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Review The general term for all attempts to synthesize the results and conclusions of two or more publications on a given topic. A review may or may not be systematic. The general term for all attempts to synthesize the results and conclusions of two or more publications on a given topic. A review may or may not be systematic.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Overview=Systematic Review A review of the evidence on a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant primary research, and to extract and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. A review of the evidence on a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant primary research, and to extract and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Meta-analysis When an systematic review incorporates a specific statistical strategy for assembling the results of several studies into a single estimate. When an systematic review incorporates a specific statistical strategy for assembling the results of several studies into a single estimate.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate A systematic review may, or may not, include meta-analysis. A systematic review may, or may not, include meta-analysis. Systematic review is always appropriate and desirable, but it may sometime inappropriate to statistically pool results from separate studies. Systematic review is always appropriate and desirable, but it may sometime inappropriate to statistically pool results from separate studies.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate A single study may produce a false negative results, due to inadequate sample size. A single study may produce a false negative results, due to inadequate sample size. In the meta-analysis the necessary number of participants can be reached, and small effects can be detected or excluded with confidence. In the meta-analysis the necessary number of participants can be reached, and small effects can be detected or excluded with confidence.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Systematic Review: Epidemiology of results Where the findings of an original study replace the individual as the unit of analysis.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Narrative reviews The classical review is subjective and therefore prone to bias and error. The classical review is subjective and therefore prone to bias and error. Selective inclusion of studies that support the author’s view is common. Selective inclusion of studies that support the author’s view is common. It ignores sample size, effect size, and research design. It ignores sample size, effect size, and research design. Systematic reviews allow a more objectives appraisal. Systematic reviews allow a more objectives appraisal.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Historical notes The statistical basis of meta-analysis reaches back to the 17 th century in astronomy and geodesy. The statistical basis of meta-analysis reaches back to the 17 th century in astronomy and geodesy. In 1976 the psychologist Glass coined the term “meta-analysis”. In 1976 the psychologist Glass coined the term “meta-analysis”. In the 1980s meta-analysis became increasingly popular in medicine. In the 1980s meta-analysis became increasingly popular in medicine.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Finally: Cochrane Collaboration was held in Oxford Cochrane Collaboration was held in Oxford in October in October The Collaboration aims to help people make well-informed decision about health care by preparing, maintaining and promoting the accessibility of systematic review. The Collaboration aims to help people make well-informed decision about health care by preparing, maintaining and promoting the accessibility of systematic review.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Principles of and procedures for systematic review Systematic reviews should be as carefully planned as any other research project, with a detailed written protocol in advance.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 1 Planning the review Stage 2 Conducting a review Stage 3 Reporting & dissemination

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 1 Planning the review Phase 0 Identification of the need for a review Phase 1 Preparation of a proposal for a review Phase 2 Development of a review protocol

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 1 Planning the review Phase 0 Identification of the need for a review Phase 1 Preparation of a proposal for a review Phase 2 Development of a review protocol

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 1 Planning the review Phase 0 Identification of the need for a review Phase 1 Preparation of a proposal for a review Phase 2 Development of a review protocol

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 1 Planning the review Phase 0 Identification of the need for a review Phase 1 Preparation of a proposal for a review Phase 2 Development of a review protocol

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 2 Conducting a review Phase 3 Identification of research Phase 4 Selection of studies Phase 5 Study quality assessment Phase 6 Data extraction and monitoring progress Phase 7 Data synthesis

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 2 Conducting a review Phase 3 Identification of research Phase 4 Selection of studies Phase 5 Study quality assessment Phase 6 Data extraction and monitoring progress Phase 7 Data synthesis

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 2 Conducting a review Phase 3 Identification of research Phase 4 Selection of studies Phase 5 Study quality assessment Phase 6 Data extraction and monitoring progress Phase 7 Data synthesis

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 2 Conducting a review Phase 3 Identification of research Phase 4 Selection of studies Phase 5 Study quality assessment Phase 6 Data extraction and monitoring progress Phase 7 Data synthesis

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 2 Conducting a review Phase 3 Identification of research Phase 4 Selection of studies Phase 5 Study quality assessment Phase 6 Data extraction and monitoring progress Phase 7 Data synthesis

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 2 Conducting a review Phase 3 Identification of research Phase 4 Selection of studies Phase 5 Study quality assessment Phase 6 Data extraction and monitoring progress Phase 7 Data synthesis

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 3 Reporting & dissemination Phase 8 The report and recommendations Phase 9 Getting evidence into practice

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 3 Reporting & dissemination Phase 8 The report and recommendations Phase 9 Getting evidence into practice

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 3 Reporting & dissemination Phase 8 The report and recommendations Phase 9 Getting evidence into practice

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Developing a Protocol for a Systematic Review

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Role of the protocol A written document that forms the ’plan’ for the review A protocol helps to avoid or minimise bias Bias may occur in the retrieval, selection, extraction of data and evaluation of results A protocol can (and should be) sent for external peer review

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Components of a protocol Background Background Review questions/ Objectives Review questions/ Objectives Search strategy Search strategy Study selection criteria and procedures Study selection criteria and procedures Study quality assessment checklists and procedures Study quality assessment checklists and procedures

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Components of a protocol Data extraction strategy Data extraction strategy Data synthesis strategy Data synthesis strategy Project timetable Project timetable

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Background section Patients / disease characteristics Patients / disease characteristics Course of disease Course of disease Pathophysiology Pathophysiology Interventions Interventions

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Research questions/ objectives Population/ participants Population/ participants Interventions Interventions Outcomes Outcomes Study designs Study designs

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Literature search Search strategy should specify which databases and other sources will be searched Search strategy should specify which databases and other sources will be searched Based on components of review questions Based on components of review questions Do not need to present detailed search strategies in protocol Do not need to present detailed search strategies in protocol

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Possible sources of literature Electronic databases Electronic databases Medline, Embase, PsycLIT, CINAHL Medline, Embase, PsycLIT, CINAHL specialist trial registers e.g. CCTR specialist trial registers e.g. CCTR Handsearching Handsearching Checking reference lists Checking reference lists Personal communication Personal communication Pharmaceutical companies Pharmaceutical companies Grey literature Grey literature

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Study selection criteria Should follow from research questions Should follow from research questions i.e. population, interventions, outcomes, study design i.e. population, interventions, outcomes, study design Inclusion and exclusion criteria Inclusion and exclusion criteria Details of selection process should be set out here (how many reviewers, how are disagreements resolved?) Details of selection process should be set out here (how many reviewers, how are disagreements resolved?)

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Study quality assessment Purpose of quality assessment? Purpose of quality assessment? For selection? For data synthesis? For implications of results? For selection? For data synthesis? For implications of results? Choose appropriate checklist (related to study design) Choose appropriate checklist (related to study design) Details of assessment process (how many reviewers, disagreements etc) Details of assessment process (how many reviewers, disagreements etc)

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Data extraction strategy Think about what data you need to extract from included studies to answer the questions Think about what data you need to extract from included studies to answer the questions Pilot a draft data extraction form Pilot a draft data extraction form Agree process (how many reviewers, disagreements etc) Agree process (how many reviewers, disagreements etc) Any manipulation of study data to be reported here Any manipulation of study data to be reported here

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Data synthesis Will results be pooled? How? Will results be pooled? How? How will differences between studies be taken into account? How will differences between studies be taken into account? Proposed sensitivity analyses? Subgroups? Proposed sensitivity analyses? Subgroups? How will results be displayed? How will results be displayed? May not be possible to be specific at protocol stage May not be possible to be specific at protocol stage

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Dissemination How will you publish it? In what format? How will you publish it? In what format?

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Timescale Set out key milestones (e.g. searching, study selection, data extraction, draft report to peer review, final report) Set out key milestones (e.g. searching, study selection, data extraction, draft report to peer review, final report) Some stages may overlap Some stages may overlap An end date for the review is the most important! An end date for the review is the most important!

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Peer review Best to find out about big problems before you start the review! Best to find out about big problems before you start the review! A panel of topic experts (including consumers) will be able to comment on the relevance of your research questions A panel of topic experts (including consumers) will be able to comment on the relevance of your research questions A panel of methodological experts will be able to comment on whether your proposed methods will answer the proposed review questions A panel of methodological experts will be able to comment on whether your proposed methods will answer the proposed review questions

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Methods of peer review Circulation of draft protocol to expert panel and receipt of comments Circulation of draft protocol to expert panel and receipt of comments Expert panel meeting Expert panel meeting Commissioners’ meeting Commissioners’ meeting Publish draft protocol on web site Publish draft protocol on web site Submit draft protocol to relevant Cochrane Review Group Submit draft protocol to relevant Cochrane Review Group

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Protocol modifications May need to change protocol at study selection stage (e.g. if there are no studies which meet inclusion criteria) May need to change protocol at study selection stage (e.g. if there are no studies which meet inclusion criteria) Other research questions may arise Other research questions may arise Modifications to the protocol should be documented and justified Modifications to the protocol should be documented and justified

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Limitations of Systematic Review Reporting bias and the inadequate quality of primary research are potentially serious problems for systematic reviews. Reporting bias and the inadequate quality of primary research are potentially serious problems for systematic reviews. The quality of component studies is of crucial importance. The quality of component studies is of crucial importance. The dissemination of research findings is not a random process; rather it is strongly influenced by the nature and direction of results. The dissemination of research findings is not a random process; rather it is strongly influenced by the nature and direction of results.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Type of reporting bias Publication bias Publication bias The publication or non-publication of research findings, depending on the nature and direction of the results The publication or non-publication of research findings, depending on the nature and direction of the results

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Time lag bias Time lag bias The rapid or delayed publication of research finding, depending on the nature and direction of the results The rapid or delayed publication of research finding, depending on the nature and direction of the results

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Multiple (duplicate) publication bias Multiple (duplicate) publication bias The multiple or singular publication of research finding, depending on the nature and direction of the results The multiple or singular publication of research finding, depending on the nature and direction of the results

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Citation bias Citation bias The citation or non- citation of research The citation or non- citation of research finding, depending on the nature and direction of the results finding, depending on the nature and direction of the results

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Language bias Language bias The publication of research finding in a particular language, depending on the nature and direction of the results The publication of research finding in a particular language, depending on the nature and direction of the results

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Outcome reporting bias Outcome reporting bias The selective reporting outcomes but not of others, depending on the nature and direction of the results The selective reporting outcomes but not of others, depending on the nature and direction of the results

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate The inclusion of data from unpublished studies can itself introduce bias. The inclusion of data from unpublished studies can itself introduce bias. Unpublished studies may be of lower methodological quality than published studies. Unpublished studies may be of lower methodological quality than published studies.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Biased inclusion criteria If, as is usual, the inclusion criteria are developed by an investigator familiar with the area under study, they can be influenced by knowledge of the results of the set of potential studies. If, as is usual, the inclusion criteria are developed by an investigator familiar with the area under study, they can be influenced by knowledge of the results of the set of potential studies. Manipulating the inclusion criteria could lead to selective inclusion of positive studies and exclusion of negative studies. Manipulating the inclusion criteria could lead to selective inclusion of positive studies and exclusion of negative studies.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Why do we search widely? Savoie et al estimated that 29.2% of items in their review were uncovered by: Savoie et al estimated that 29.2% of items in their review were uncovered by: searching the web searching the web handsearching handsearching scanning reference lists scanning reference lists personal communication personal communication searching specialised databases and web sites. searching specialised databases and web sites.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Why search widely…. Allen & Hanburys found that: Allen & Hanburys found that: only 51% of the clinical trials relating to their respiratory products were published in journals indexed by MEDLINE, EMBASE or CINAHL (46% are in grey lit) only 51% of the clinical trials relating to their respiratory products were published in journals indexed by MEDLINE, EMBASE or CINAHL (46% are in grey lit) Wallace et al. Wallace et al. 11 of 65 trials in end stage renal disease reviews were found by searching beyond major databases. 11 of 65 trials in end stage renal disease reviews were found by searching beyond major databases.

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Why search widely.... Long lead times before publication: Long lead times before publication: publication gaps after conference presentation publication gaps after conference presentation indexing publication lag before recorded in databases indexing publication lag before recorded in databases Cheng et al, 1998 Cheng et al, % of a set of conference papers achieved publication within 12 months 8.1% of a set of conference papers achieved publication within 12 months 29% within 2 years and 40% within 5 years 29% within 2 years and 40% within 5 years

R. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Delay and non publication Non-publication Non-publication Cheng et al, 1998 Cheng et al, 1998 only 32% of abstracts presented at chronic fatigue conferences were subsequently published in full only 32% of abstracts presented at chronic fatigue conferences were subsequently published in full Petticrew et al, 1999 Petticrew et al, % of oral paper presented at the Society for Social Medicine 1996 achieved publication 50.6 % of oral paper presented at the Society for Social Medicine 1996 achieved publication