Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Systematic review -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

A systematic review is a literature review focused on a single question which tries to identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high quality research evidence relevant to that question. Systematic reviews are generally regarded as the highest level of medical evidence by evidence-based medicine professionals. An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is becoming mandatory for all professionals involved in the delivery of health care.

Characteristics

A systematic review is a summary of research (often in the biomedical or healthcare context) that uses explicit methods to perform a thorough literature search and critical appraisal of individual studies to identify the valid and applicable evidence. It often, but not always, uses appropriate techniques (meta-analysis) to combine these valid studies, or at least uses grading of the levels of evidence depending on the methodology used. A systematic review uses an objective and transparent approach for research synthesis, with the aim of minimising bias. While many systematic reviews are based on an explicit quantitative meta-analysis of available data, there are also qualitative reviews which nonetheless adhere to the standards for gathering, analyzing and reporting evidence. The EPPI-Centre have been influential in developing methods for combining both qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews^[1]. Other recent developments include realist reviews and the meta-narrative approach.^[2]

Cochrane collaboration

Many healthcare journals now publish systematic reviews, but the best-known source is the Cochrane Collaboration, a group of over 6,000 specialists in health care who systematically review randomised trials of the effects of treatments and, when appropriate, the results of other research. Cochrane reviews are published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews section of the Cochrane Library, which to date (February 2007) contains 2,893 complete reviews and 1,646 protocols.

The Cochrane Group provides a handbook for systematic reviewers of interventions, where they suggest that each systematic review should contain the following main sections:

• Background
• Objectives
• Methods of the review
• Results
• Conclusion and discussion

There are seven steps for preparing and maintaining a systematic review, as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook:

1. Formulating a problem
2. Locating and selecting studies
3. Critical appraisal of studies
4. Collecting data
5. Analyzing and presenting results
6. Interpreting results
7. Improving and updating reviews

Strengths and weaknesses

While systematic reviews are regarded as the strongest form of medical evidence, a review of 300 studies found that not all systematic reviews were equally reliable, and that their reporting could be improved by a universally agreed upon set of standards and guidelines.^[3]

A further study by the same group found that of 100 guidelines reviewed, 4% required updating within a year, and 11% after 2 years; this figure was higher in rapidly-changing fields of medicine, especially cardiovascular medicine.^[4] 7% of systematic reviews needed updating at the time of publication. ^[4] A 2003 study suggested that extending searches beyond major databases, perhaps into gray literature, would increase the effectiveness of reviews.^[5]

See also

• Meta-analysis
• Review journal

References

1. ^ (Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Sutcliffe K, Rees R. Brunton G. Kavanagh J (2004) Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews: an example from public health. British Medical Journal 328:1010-1012)
2. ^ Fraser MacFarlane; Olivia Kyriakidou; Bate, Paul; Richard Peacock; Greenhalgh, Trisha (2005). Diffusion of Innovations in Health Service Organisations: A Systematic Literature (Studies in Urban and Social Change). Blackwell Publishing Professional. ISBN 0-7279-1869-9. 
3. ^ Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007). "Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews". PLoS Med. 4 (3): e78. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. PMID 17388659. 
4. ^ ^{a b} Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D (2007). "How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis". Ann. Intern. Med. 147 (4): 224–33. PMID 17638714. 
5. ^ Savoie I, Helmer D, Green CJ, Kazanjian A (2003). "Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search". Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19 (1): 168–78. doi:10.1017/S0266462303000163. PMID 12701949. 

External links

• University of York (March 2001), Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness:CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD Report 4 (2nd edition). Retrieved 2007-06-27
• Cochrane Collaboration
• EPPI-Centre website
• MeSH: Review Literature - articles about the systemic review process
• MeSH: Review [Publication Type - limit search results to systemic reviews
• PubMed search: "Review Literature"[MAJR]

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 18 September 2008, at 07:09.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Systematic review".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Systematic_review

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.