Alex Pollock

Banks JL

Barnett-Page E

Bastian H

Berge E

Bobath B

Boers M

Boger EJ

Booth A

Borah R

Brazzelli M

Cahill LS

Carr JH

Chalmers I

Craig P

Davies PM

Deeks JJ

Dixon-Woods M

Eivind Berge

Fain JA

Feigin VL

Ganann R

Garner P

Glasziou P

Gotzsche PC

Gough D

Green BN

Greenwood N

Grimshaw J

Guyatt GH

Harden A

Higgins JPT

Hoffmann TC

Joanna Briggs Institute

Kastner M

Katrak P

Kirkham JJ

Kreis J

Langhorne P

Lees R

Levac D

Moher D

Morley RF

Pendlebury ST

Peoples H

PLoS Medicine Editors

Pollock A

Rathbone J

Riva JJ

Rowat A

Sackett DL

Santisteban L

Saunders DH

Silagy CA

Snilstveit B

Stroke Unit Trialists Collaboration

Stroup DF

Thomas J

Tong A

Tyson SF

Vickrey BG

Waddington H

Wardlaw JM

Weir MC

Whiting PF

Wildridge V

Williamson PR

Wong G

Yaffe J

English

High quality up-to-date systematic reviews are essential in order to help healthcare practitioners and researchers keep up-to-date with a large and rapidly growing body of evidence. Systematic reviews answer pre-defined research questions using explicit, reproducible methods to identify, critically appraise and combine results of primary research studies. Key stages in the production of systematic reviews include clarification of aims and methods in a protocol, finding relevant research, collecting data, assessing study quality, synthesizing evidence, and interpreting findings. Systematic reviews may address different types of questions, such as questions about effectiveness of interventions, diagnostic test accuracy, prognosis, prevalence or incidence of disease, accuracy of measurement instruments, or qualitative data. For all reviews, it is important to define criteria such as the population, intervention, comparison and outcomes, and to identify potential risks of bias. Reviews of the effect of rehabilitation interventions or reviews of data from observational studies, diagnostic test accuracy, or qualitative data may be more methodologically challenging than reviews of effectiveness of drugs for the prevention or treatment of stroke. Challenges in reviews of stroke rehabilitation can include poor definition of complex interventions, use of outcome measures that have not been validated, and poor generalizability of results. There may also be challenges with bias because the effects are dependent on the persons delivering the intervention, and because masking of participants and investigators may not be possible. There are a wide range of resources which can support the planning and completion of systematic reviews, and these should be considered when planning a systematic review relating to stroke

Pollock, Alex

Berge, Eivind

ResearchOnline@GCU

How to do a systematic review

 High quality up-to-date systematic reviews are essential in order to help healthcare practitioners and researchers keep up-to-date with a large and rapidly growing body of evidence. Systematic reviews answer pre-defined research questions using explicit, reproducible methods to identify, critically appraise and combine results of primary research studies. Key stages in the production of systematic reviews include clarification of aims and methods in a protocol, finding relevant research, collecting data, assessing study quality, synthesizing evidence, and interpreting findings. Systematic reviews may address different types of questions, such as questions about effectiveness of interventions, diagnostic test accuracy, prognosis, prevalence or incidence of disease, accuracy of measurement instruments, or qualitative data. For all reviews, it is important to define criteria such as the population, intervention, comparison and outcomes, and to identify potential risks of bias. Reviews of the effect of rehabilitation interventions or reviews of data from observational studies, diagnostic test accuracy, or qualitative data may be more methodologically challenging than reviews of effectiveness of drugs for the prevention or treatment of stroke. Challenges in reviews of stroke rehabilitation can include poor definition of complex interventions, use of outcome measures that have not been validated, and poor generalizability of results. There may also be challenges with bias because the effects are dependent on the persons delivering the intervention, and because masking of participants and investigators may not be possible. There are a wide range of resources which can support the planning and completion of systematic reviews, and these should be considered when planning a systematic review relating to stroke. </jats:p

Crossref

International Journal of Stroke

https://researchonline.gcu.ac.uk/files/25392240/Pollock_How_to_do_a_systematic_review_SUBMITTED_VERSION_amended_FINAL_all_changes_accepted_change_to_Table_1.pdf

How to do a systematic review

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ResearchOnline@GCU

Crossref