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 ?
Interventions encouraging the use of systematic reviews by health policymakers and managers: a systematic review.
Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement.
Sian Taylor-Phillips, Ph.D., from the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom, and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the odds of recommending screening according to the use of systematic review methods across conditions.
A 2016 systematic review included 2 good-quality and 9 fair-quality RCTs evaluating the benefits of low-dose aspirin compared with placebo or no treatment for primary prevention of CVD events in 118,445 patients ages 40 years and older.
Running a systematic review without full knowledge about the inclusion criteria can lead to problems with assessing the validity, applicability, and comprehensiveness of the systematic review [3].
Park et al., "The gut microbiome profile in obesity: a systematic review," International Journal of Endocrinology, vol.
Cornell's Division of Nutritional Sciences (DNS), a shared unit of Cornell's College of Human Ecology and College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, hosted the 4th annual WHO/Cochrane/Cornell University Summer Institute for Systematic Reviews in Nutrition for Global Policy-Making from July 24 to Aug.
Meta-analyses are sometimes included as part of a systematic review (but not necessarily).
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.[sup][4] The rationale of topic selection for evidence-based expert consensus statements differs slightly from that for guidelines since consensus statements focus on areas that are more specific with narrower scopes.
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).
In 2018, Koushki, et al, who published a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials totaling over 700 participants.
An alternative finding aid for locating systematic review methodology articles in PubMed was released in December 2015.

Full browser ?