systematic review


Also found in: Medical, Acronyms, Wikipedia.

systematic review

(of health care) a process of critical appraisal that evaluates the nature of the evidence in support of a treatment against the following test questions. Does it work (its efficacy)? How well does it work (effectiveness)? Is this the best of the available treatments in terms of cost-benefit? And also, can it be made available to those at risk, is it what people want and is it appropriate to their clinically-defined need? The research evidence in support of the treatment is evaluated against the following hierarchical order of strength of evidence: randomized clinical trials, robust experimental studies, robust observational studies, expert opinion and the endorsement of respected authorities. A number of factors underpin systematic review: the need to remove ineffective treatments, the need to establish scientifically agreed criteria for the introduction of new treatments, the need to demonstrate clinical effectiveness through the measurement of outcome and to provide a research-based system for resource allocation in treatment (see I. Crombie (1996) The Pocket Guide to Critical Appraisal, BMJ, London).
References in periodicals archive ?
In 2004, Bronfort, et al, conducted a systematic review and found that there is moderate evidence that spinal manipulative treatment has an effect similar to an efficacious prescription, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug for chronic low back pain.
There is a robust body of literature examining librarian involvement in the systematic review process, including articles focusing on emerging roles of librarians [11-13] and how librarian involvement improves review quality [14-17], improves search accuracy [14, 16, 18, 19], and increases retrieval of grey literature [16, 18, 20].
The consultant will assist WHO/HIV/TAC with Technical expert support to WHOs work on systematic reviews and
but here we consider consulting an up-to-date existing systematic review of literature or, if resources, skills and time allow for it, conducting or commissioning one.
The development process of evidence-based expert consensus statements can be summarized into the following five steps: (1) topic selection; (2) expert group composition; (3) systematic review of evidence; (4) formulation of recommendations or suggestions; (5) peer review.
Practicing and teaching nurses describe systematic review, an approach to keeping up with the latest research findings in a certain area that looks at all the finding on a particular topic and incorporates them as far as possible into research and experiential and contextual evidence.
This overview 1) used systematic review methodology to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews of interventions and 2) adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (9).
The Cochrane (2016) Collaboration, The Joanna Briggs Institute (2016), and the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) Centre (2016) at the Institute of Education at the University of London each provide guidance with respect to performing a systematic review.
Topical treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis of the scalp: a systematic review.
In the past, academic librarians at Vanderbilt have had little involvement in the systematic review process; however they can be valuable contributors because of their specialized skills and knowledge about searching and proper utilization of databases.
The systematic review can be conducted without taking the next step of meta-analysis.
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and metaanalysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

Full browser ?